The Assembly met at 2.00 pm (The Initial Presiding Officer (The LordAlderdice of Knock) in the Chair).
The sitting was called to order at 2.06 pm.

Lord Alderdice: Welcome to the first meeting of the New NorthernIreland Assembly.

Assembly: Preliminary Matters

Lord Alderdice: I will begin the proceedings by drawing attention to a number of formal statements.
First, in respect of my own position, I received from the Secretary of State for NorthernIreland a letter of appointment dated 29June. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:
"In accordance with paragraph 3(1) of the Schedule to the NorthernIreland (Elections) Act 1998, I hereby appoint you as the Initial Presiding Officer for the New NorthernIreland Assembly."
The letter also contains formal notification of the time and place of the first meeting of the Assembly. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:
"By virtue of paragraph1 of the Schedule to the NorthernIreland (Elections) Act 1998 it falls to me to decide where meetings of the Assembly shall be held, and when. I hereby direct that the first meeting of the Assembly shall take place in BlockB, CastleBuildings, Stormont, commencing at 2.00 pm on Wednesday 1July."
I will arrange for the full text of that letter to be printed in the Official Report.
Following is the letter:
"In accordance with paragraph 3(1) of the Schedule to the NorthernIreland (Elections) Act 1998, I hereby appoint you as the Initial Presiding Officer for the New NorthernIreland Assembly. Further details of the terms of your appointment will follow shortly.
An early substantive task for the Assembly will be to consider any proposals there may be to elect an Initial Presiding Officer and a Deputy Initial Presiding Officer, on a cross-community basis. You would of course be eligible to be nominated as a candidate for election to the post of Initial Presiding Officer. If no proposal is made or no election is successful, you would of course remain in post.
Time and place of Assembly meetings
By virtue of paragraph1 of the Schedule to the NorthernIreland (Elections) Act 1998 it falls to me to decide where meetings of the Assembly shall be held, and when. I hereby direct that the first meeting of the Assembly shall take place in BlockB, CastleBuildings, Stormont, commencing at 2.00 pm on Wednesday 1July.
Should there be business for the Assembly to conduct on Thursday 2July, I would be content to direct that a meeting be held on that day at the same place. Thereafter, while facilities for Members, Committees and office-holders will continue to be available, initially at CastleBuildings and then at ParliamentBuildings throughout the summer, I presume there will be an interval of some weeks before the next meeting of the Assembly. I will need to write to you formally about that in due course but I hope that before then PaulMurphy or I can have a discussion with you about how my duty to direct the times and places of the Assembly’s meetings can be discharged in a way which gives the Assembly reasonable flexibility and an opportunity to influence the pattern and frequency of its own meetings.
Standing Orders
In accordance with paragraph 10(1) of the Schedule to the NorthernIreland (Elections) Act 1998, I am responsible for determining the Standing Orders for the Assembly and I hereby notify the enclosed Standing Orders to you. They have been drawn up following consultation with the political parties and I trust that they provide a basis for the efficient conduct of the Assembly’s initial business. You will see that AnnexA to the Standing Orders sets out the agenda for the Assembly’s first meeting.
Clearly, more developed Standing Orders will need to be drawn up to enable the Assembly to proceed, for example, to the appointment — by the D’Hondt procedure — of a Shadow Executive Committee and the establishment of related Assembly Committees; and I intend to determine such Standing Orders as soon as possible. In drawing these up I would value the views of members of the Assembly and I trust that arrangements can be made to enable the Government to consult a relevant Committee of the Assembly or to secure the views of the Assembly in other appropriate ways.
The work of the new Assembly in both its ‘shadow’ and substantive phases will be challenging and I hope rewarding, not only for all its members but for the people of NorthernIreland as a whole. The role of the Initial Presiding Officer will be extremely important in all of this.
I wish you every success as the Initial Presiding Officer for the New NorthernIreland Assembly. PaulMurphy or I would welcome an opportunity to meet you before the Assembly’s first meeting to discuss any issues you would like to raise with us."
I should also at this point draw attention to the statutory remit of this Assembly, which is set out in section 1(1) of the NorthernIreland (Elections) Act 1998:
"There shall be an Assembly called the New Northern Ireland Assembly, for the purpose of taking part in preparations to give effect to the Agreement reached at the multi-party Talks on NorthernIreland set out in Command Paper 3883."
I have also received from the Secretary of State a letter, dated 29June, formally referring a range of specific matters to the Assembly for its consideration. Copies of that letter have been distributed to all Members, and I shall arrange for the full text to be printed with the record of these proceedings.
Following is the letter:
"The New NorthernIreland Assembly has been established, in the words of the NorthernIreland (Elections) Act 1998, ‘for the purpose of taking part in preparations to give effect to the Agreement reached in the multi-party talks on NorthernIreland set out in Command Paper 3883’. This reflects paragraph35, page9 of the Agreement which states that ‘The Assembly will meet first for the purpose of organisation, without legislative or executive powers, to resolve its Standing Orders and working practices and make preparations for the effective functioning of the Assembly, the British/Irish Council and North/South Ministerial Council and associated implementation bodies’.
By virtue of Section 1(2) of the NorthernIreland (Elections) Act 1998 I may ‘refer’ to the Assembly
During its ‘shadow’ phase the Assembly and those holding office in the Assembly will have a very important role to play in preparing to implement the various provisions of the Belfast Agreement. In that context there are a number of specific matters arising from the Agreement which I hereby refer to the Assembly.
First, the implementation of the Agreement requires the Assembly to organise itself and put in place the basic structures of the Assembly, as set out in the Agreement, through
Second, other preparations to implement the Agreement include those required to establish the British/Irish Council and North/South Council and associated implementation bodies. This will require action from the Assembly or members holding office in the Assembly, including:
Third, the Assembly will need to ‘resolve’ its Standing Orders and working practices, to apply after powers have been transferred. Agreement on Standing Orders will of course require cross-community support in the Assembly.
Fourth, there is the question of establishing the ‘consultative Civic Forum’, as set out in paragraph34 ... of the Agreement. This specifies that ‘the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will by agreement provide administrative support for the Civic Forum and establish guidelines for the selection of representatives to the Civic Forum’. During the Assembly’s shadow phase I am anxious to consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (and the Assembly more widely) so that arrangements can be put in hand to secure the earliest appropriate establishment of the Civic Forum.
In referring these four matters to the Assembly under Section 1(2) of the NorthernIreland (Elections) Act 1998, I reserve the right to refer these or other related matters to the Assembly in different or more detailed terms; and to refer a range of other matters, whether or not they arise specifically from the Agreement reached in the multi-party talks."
Further, I have received from the Secretary of State today a letter dated 1July, which reads as follows:
"Further to my letter to you of 29June, and the initial Standing Orders for the New Northern Ireland Assembly, I am writing to notify you that I have determined that the initial agenda should be extended to enable a time-limited adjournment debate, once all the other business on the initial agenda has been completed."
The purpose of that debate is to enable discussion on matters of current difficulty and importance in NorthernIreland. That will be the time when those matters may be raised. The Secretary of State has indicated that it is a time-limited debate, and I believe that all parties should have an opportunity to speak. I therefore propose to allow each party Leader, or his or her nominee, in order of party size, to speak for up to 10minutes.
I mentioned to the party Whips yesterday that I, for so long as I am in the Chair, will have no objection to the use of Irish or any other language. However, we have no simultaneous translation facilities at present, so it would be appropriate if, out of courtesy, Members were to offer their own translation. Speeches will be reported in the language spoken. There will be no translation other than that which is offered by the Member. That applies to any alternative language, though Irish is, I expect, the one most likely to be used.
The Standing Orders provide that no mobile phones, tape recorders, brief-cases or large bags may be brought into the Chamber, including the Strangers’ Gallery. At this sitting Members may carry pagers so long as they are on vibration mode.
Finally, I propose to have a suspension of about 15minutes after the signing of the Roll so that I can ensure that each Member has taken his or her seat in accordance with the Standing Orders.
I now invite Members to formally take their seats — in other words, to sign the Roll.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. You have indicated that there will be an Adjournment debate on important and significant matters and that the party Leaders or their nominees will be given 10minutes to speak. Will the three individuals on the Unionist side be entitled to 10minutes each?

Lord Alderdice: I have received no approaches on that matter, but if I am still in a position to do so I shall consider any proposal as constructively as I can.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. I take it that in future the three individuals will be informed. My information is that they have been told about nothing. Independent members of other bodies receive the same information as everyone else. The fact that people here are Independents does not mean that they should not be properly briefed.

Lord Alderdice: How independent Members choose to conduct themselves is a business matter, and there are various models. However, perhaps it is a little early for us to be dealing with this question.

Assembly: Roll of Members

Lord Alderdice: I now invite Members to take their seats by signing the Roll of Membership. This may be a time-consuming procedure, but it is important for practical reasons.
To avoid any confusion I shall ask the party groups, in alphabetical order, to come forward and sign one of the two registers, after which there will be a short suspension so that I may verify the designation — Unionist, Nationalist or Other — of each Member. I expect that it will take about 30minutes to complete the process. Members may leave the Chamber during that time.
The following Members signed the Roll: Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Sean Neeson, MonicaMcWilliams, JaneMorrice, David Ervine, Billy Hutchinson, Gerry Adams, Bairbre de Brún, Michelle Gildernew, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Alex Maskey, BarryMcElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, MaryNelis, Dara O’Hagan, Alex Attwood, PJBradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, ArthurDoherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, JohnFee, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, DenisHaughey, Joe Hendron, John Hume, PatriciaLewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, EddieMcGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Brid Rodgers, JohnTierney, Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, OliverGibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Gardiner Kane, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian R K Paisley, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, IrisRobinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, JimShannon, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson, Norman Boyd, Roger Hutchinson, Robert McCartney, PatrickRoche, Cedric Wilson, Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, JoanCarson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, IvanDavis, Reg Empey, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, GeorgeSavage, John Taylor, David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wilson, Boyd Douglas, Denis Watson, Lord Alderdice.
The sitting was suspended at 3.01 pm and resumed at 3.30 pm.

Lord Alderdice: All the names and designations on the Roll of Membership have been checked, and some changes have been made. I am satisfied that those Members who have signed the Roll may be regarded as having taken their seats, their designations being now clear.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. Those whose designations were not clear included the two representatives of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition. They seemed to be in some sort of political drag as "other Unionist/Nationalist". If they have now satisfied you with regard to their designation, can you satisfy us by telling us what that designation is?

Lord Alderdice: They have changed their designation to "Inclusive other", the words "Unionist" and "Nationalist" having been deleted.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. It is quite clear from initial Standing Order 3(1) that Members should designate their identity as "Nationalist", "Unionist" or "Other". I understand that the two Women’s Coalition Members have breached that. Indeed, I understand from an interview on television that the Alliance Party Members have described themselves as "Centre". Surely those who claim to have assisted in putting together these Standing Orders and this Agreement should abide by the rules and stop playing games with this Assembly.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I want to put another relevant point of order to you, Sir, so that you can answer both at once. How will you designate such Members for voting purposes? This has to do with consensus voting.

Lord Alderdice: I have taken legal advice on a number of issues, including this one because the designations must be very clear and I have to be satisfied about them. The precise wording can be flexible, but the designation must be absolutely clear. The officials and I have checked through this, and with regard to the Women’s Coalition and the Alliance Party I am very clear that the only possible interpretation of their designation is "Other". I can go through the designations of other Members if the Assembly wishes, but they are clear to me.
I remind Members that it is possible, with seven days’ written notice, to change designation. That would be entirely proper; whether it would be politically advantageous is another matter and not for me to say.
Voting sheets for today have been made out, and the designations are clear. No change is possible within the next seven days. This is very relevant in view of the possibility of a number of votes.

Assembly: Presiding Officer and Deputy

Lord Alderdice: The next item on the Order Paper is the election of a Presiding Officer. Are there any proposals?
There being no proposals, and the time for proposals having expired, I shall remain in office in accordance with Standing Order 13(5).
The next item on the Order Paper is the election of a Deputy Initial Presiding Officer.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I mentioned to you, Sir, that I wanted to raise a matter, and you said that I could not do so until that item of business had been disposed of. There is a shadow hanging over the province with regard to the Drumcree parade, and the Assembly should have an opportunity to discuss the matter. May I take it that each party Leader will have 10 minutes on the Adjournment? And will the Independents have an opportunity to take part?

Lord Alderdice: In the Adjournment debate Members will be free to raise any issue that they choose, though I imagine that many may wish to talk about the matter to which you refer. I have decided that each of the parties will have 10 minutes during which one person may speak. That may be the Leader or the nominee of the Leader.
I have received other requests that one of the three independent Unionist Members be allowed to speak. Since Mr Watson comes from the area where this matter is at its height, it seems to me not unreasonable that he be given a chance to address the Assembly. He, like other Members, would have 10 minutes.
Of course, no pressure will be put on anyone.

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. Can you explain the basis on which you will allow one of the individual Members to speak? You may have a great interest in what he has to say, but he does not constitute a party, and there are other Members from Upper Bann. How do you propose to cater for them?

Lord Alderdice: That is a difficult issue. The Standing Orders were intended to deal only with the first meeting and largely with formal business. This obviously goes beyond formal business. If I call only people nominated by parties, three elected representatives here will have no opportunity to speak, no matter how relevant their ideas. Of course, other representatives from the vicinity will have an opportunity to speak as the nominees of their party Leaders.
This is not an entirely satisfactory ruling, but it is the best I can do for the moment. Perhaps a Standing Orders Committee could draw up more detailed rules to cover such an eventuality.
I want to make it clear that my giving a representative of the three independent Members this opportunity to speak does not mean that I am recognising them as a party or as an official group. To do so would confer upon them other privileges and possibly responsibilities or disadvantages. No precedent is being set; I am simply responding to a difficult situation, using the limited guidance in the Initial Standing Orders.
Returning to the matter of the election of a Deputy Initial Presiding Officer, may I ask if there are any proposals?
There are no proposals, and the time has expired.

First Minister (Designate) and Deputy

Lord Alderdice: With regard to the election of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), are there any proposals?

John Taylor: I beg to move
That The Rt Hon David Trimble MP be First Minister (Designate) and Mr Seamus Mallon MP be Deputy First Minister (Designate).
I am conscious of the position in which we find ourselves as I served in the Northern Ireland Parliament, in the first Assembly, in the Constitutional Convention and in the second Assembly. For me what is called the New Assembly it is the third Assembly. This is an opportunity for all traditions — all sections of the community — to co-operate, to bring Northern Ireland out of the morass that it has been in for the past 30 years, so that we may have a future in which the Province can hold its head high, not only in the United Kingdom but also in Europe and the United States of America.
I am proposing two men who have shown vision and leadership in their political parties. First, there is MrTrimble, with whom I have co-operated both at university and in Parliament. It is he who has shown the leadership and vision needed in the Ulster Unionist Party in the last few years to bring us to the stage we are at today. Secondly, there is Mr Mallon. Whether I like it or not, he is my Member of Parliament. He is the Deputy Leader of the Social Democratic Labour Party, and I have worked with him for many years. Although we disagree strongly on political objectives, I have always found him to be a good friend — one who, I believe, will work for the good of Northern Ireland.
There are many problems facing us — for instance, the economy, including the need for new industry; infrastructure; and funding of hospitals and schools. We need men who will work for Northern Ireland and will help us to hold our heads high abroad.

Lord Alderdice: Is there a Member to second the motion?

Mr John Hume: I would like very much to second the motion made by Mr Taylor.
The proposal symbolises the fundamental objective of this institution, which is to have the representatives of both sections of the community working together in the best interests of all. I look forward to seeing that transforming our relationships.

Lord Alderdice: I call on the RtHonDavid Trimble, the nominee for First Minister of this Assembly, to make a statement indicating his acceptance of the nomination.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I accept.

Lord Alderdice: I call on MrSeamus Mallon, the nominee for Deputy First Minister of this Assembly, to make a statement indicating that the nomination is accepted.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I accept.

Lord Alderdice: Are there any further proposals?

Mr Gerry Adams: I wish to speak.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: And I wish to speak.

Lord Alderdice: Are there any further proposals?
The time for proposals has expired, and two Members have indicated that they wish to speak. Anyone else who wants to take part should indicate his or her intention clearly.
The first Member on my list is Mr Adams.

Mr Gerry Adams: First of all, let me say that I am very pleased to be here and to see so many other people with us. I mo theanga féin, caithfidh mé a rá gur lá stairiúil an lá seo, agus le cuidiú Dé beidh muid, agus tá muid, i mo bharúil féin, ag cur ár n-aidhm stairiúil ar aghaidh. As seo amach, is féidir linn — [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: Let us have order for the Member speaking.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: If we could understand him we might give him order.

Lord Alderdice: May I have order and due respect in the Chamber, please.

Mr Gerry Adams: Agus as seo amach, agus b’fhéidir má éisteann an Dochtúir Paisley liom, beidh a fhios aige faoinár dteanga féin, agus b’fhéidir go gcuirfidh duine éigin "manners" ar an fhear udaí. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.
The Sinn Féin Ard-Chomhairle met yesterday. We reiterated our support for the Agreement and, in particular because of today’s business, for the entitlement of the largest party to the position of First Minister and of the second-largest party to the position of Deputy First Minister. Indeed, we think it might be useful — though this would have to be on a voluntary basis — for the posts to rotate because the difference between the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Ulster Unionist party, in terms of numbers of Assembly Members, is so narrow.
I want to say a particular word of commendation to Mr Hume, the Leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party. Everyone who contested the election deserves to be commended, but it was a special election for Nationalism, and people will take much of succour from the fact that a Nationalist is taking up the position of Deputy First Minister. I wish Mr Mallon well. I have no doubt that he will uphold the entitlements of everyone here, just as I am upholding the entitlements of the Ulster Unionist Party even though its members have yet to uphold the entitlements of the people I represent and others throughout this statelet.
I hope that we are entering a new era. Yesterday the Ard-Chomhairle delegated to the Sinn Fein Assembly team the right to work out tactically how to proceed. We have held discussions among ourselves and have taken some soundings. Bearing in mind remarks made in the past and trying to be far-sighted about what is happening within Unionism, we consider that we might not be doing Mr Trimble any favour by voting for him. Other Unionists would be only too pleased to beat him up. We reiterate our firm support for the Ulster Unionist Party’s entitlement in the hope that we will also be upholding our own entitlement. We will abstain when the vote is taken.
Sin é, sin mo mhéid, mar a dúirt mé ar dtús, tá mé go han-sásta a bheith libhse, there is a lot of work to be done.
We must see change. There is a whole agenda of change, to be achieved not just through this institution but also through the cross-border and other bodies. One thinks in particular of the equality agenda and other areas where progress is needed.
We meet here on our own terms — Unionists, from whichever party, and Republicans alike. It is only by meeting like this that we can work out a shared future for all the people of this island. If the adults in the Chamber could stop thinking about themselves and their particular party niches and start thinking about our children and the new millennium and about the five million people on an island as small as this one, surely we could shape a future that we could all be proud of and have ownership of.
I wish everyone well. In particular, I wish the two nominees well in their new posts.
Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Today we are being asked to approve the appointment of two people. Unionists know where Mr Mallon stands and how he intends to carry out his policies. The other person is not the nominee of Unionists; he is the nominee of the Ulster Unionist Party, as it now calls itself, which does not represent a majority in the Assembly, as is quite clear from the Benches that are not occupied by Ulster Unionist Members. Mr Adams will not vote for Mr Mallon or MrTrimble, but before the world he congratulated Mr Mallon on his nomination.
On behalf of the Unionist people whom I represent I, along with others in the Chamber of like mind and the Independents, must put a question to the nominee for First Minister. It is about his policy on decommissioning. In this Chamber during the first part of the talks he told us that he would take a very firm stand on decommissioning. In fact, in one issue of the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ he was reported as having said that he would bring the talks down if decommissioning did not take place. That did not happen, and now we have the situation we are in today.
In an answer to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons the Prime Minister stated that no terrorist or anyone fronting a terrorist movement or purporting to speak on behalf of terrorists could enter a new Government of Northern Ireland. The House of Commons Hansard was changed, though we have been told by the Editor of Debates there that the meaning is the same. The answer that the Prime Minister gave was
"Yes, there cannot be those who do not decommission their weapons in any future Government of Northern Ireland."
And he added
"there must be substantial decommissioning."
Mr Mallon, with whom I sit in the House of Commons, made it clear recently that that is not going to happen, so we know exactly where he stands.
I have read carefully the manifesto of the right hon Gentleman’s party. It hints — indeed, many have said that it states — that he will not sit in any Cabinet with those who are in the league picked out by the Prime Minister, that there must first be substantial decommissioning.
What is the right hon Gentleman’s policy on that issue? If he cannot tell us, all those Members who told people on the doorsteps that they would not sit down with Sinn Fein/IRA or anyone else until there had been substantial decommissioning will have to search their consciences as they vote today. We on these Benches would be failing in our duty if we did not make this matter crystal clear. Where does the proposed First Minister stand on this very important issue?
Mr Adams talked of people. I am thinking today of the people who were murdered by his cohorts, the families that were smashed, the people who were rent by sorrow, the people turned into vegetables by IRA violence. They deserve an answer from the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. What is his real policy on this matter?
It has been said that when he becomes First Minister he will talk to everybody because his position will be like that of the Prime Minister. Will those who vote for him today be enabling him to do what he said he would never do? These are the issues that Members must bear in mind as they cast their votes. Unfortunately the system does not allow us to vote for the nominees separately. The system was carefully worked out by those who have devised every aspect of this very peculiar set-up.
A member of the Progressive Unionist Party castigated me, saying that I had broken my word by coming here today. I want to nail that falsehood. I always said that I would not sit down in the talks if Sinn Fein joined them without decommissioning, and I kept my promise to the electorate. The Unionist people want to know what Mr Trimble’s policy is. He has a duty to tell us, for he is going to be the First Minister of this country. Does he agree with the Prime Minister that Sinn Fein people cannot be in any Government of Northern Ireland until there has been substantial decommissioning?

Mr Robert McCartney: I am sure everyone here welcomes the ecumenical remarks of the Leader of Sinn Fein about the peaceful future that he envisages the two sides of this community sharing as they march forward, perhaps into the sunset rather than the sunrise.
What does Mr Adams offer? His party — Sinn Fein — has been described by several Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and a number of Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland as being inextricably linked to the Provisional IRA. "Inextricably linked" means that they cannot be separated. If they cannot be separated, what criteria are to be applied to determine whether, in this Assembly, the real intention is to work the democratic process or whether, if the democratic process fails to deliver the political objectives for which they contend, they will go back — as one of their elected Members said — to what they do best?
I welcome what Mr Adams said, and I would be prepared to work and share the responsibility for the future well-being of Northern Ireland if I could believe it — if I had some evidence that it was soundly based, sincerely meant. But he is a member of a party that insists — through its alter ego, the Provisional IRA — that it will retain all its weapons. At the ardfheis which endorsed that party’s acceptance of this Agreement, delegate after delegate stated that it would move forward on the twin tracks of participating in the democratic process and retaining its military capacity. It is no coincidence that many of those who are represented here today as democrats served their apprenticeship in the military wing of that combination.

Dr Sean Farren: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. Is Mr McCartney speaking to the matter before the Assembly?

Lord Alderdice: I hesitate to rule robustly on such issues at this juncture, but let me be clear about the time allocated to each Member — 10minutes.

Mr Gerry Adams: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. In the interests of good manners and good relationships —

Several Members: Stand up.

Mr Gerry Adams: Sorry: I thought I was standing up. I am certainly standing up for the rights of the people who sent me here.
Should not each party be referred to by its given title? I undertake to describe the United Kingdom Unionists as the United Kingdom Unionists, the Democratic Unionist Party as the Democratic Unionist Party, and so on, and my party should be referred to as Sinn Fein.

Lord Alderdice: It is clear that a number of issues relating to Standing Orders will have to be addressed. We need a Committee to decide, for instance, how Members should be described and how they should address each other. It would be invidious for me, as Initial Presiding Officer, to rule on issues which go beyond the current Standing Orders.

Mr Gerry Adams: Fair enough.

Mr Robert McCartney: With regard to the issues put to the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party by the Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, what is the policy of the Ulster Unionists on sitting down with Sinn Fein, which, according to the Prime Minister, is inextricably linked with Provisional IRA, while the Provisional IRA declares that it will retain all its weaponry? All the Members of this Assembly want Mr Trimble to answer that key question — particularly members of his own party. If he shares the views of the Prime Minister can he give an unequivocal assurance to all those within the broader Unionist family that he will not sit down in government with members of a party that is inextricably linked with a listed terrorist organisation which intends to retain all its weaponry?
Those who are to vote on this composite motion are entitled to know what they are voting for. The Social Democratic and Labour Party, through its Leader, Mr Hume, and its Deputy Leader, MrMallon, has honourably and honestly made its position clear. For them decommissioning is no longer an issue, and they have no qualms whatever about sitting down in government with the representatives of Sinn Fein.
Every Unionist here is entitled to know the proposed First Minister’s views on that issue, for upon them may well depend how Members vote. But I should make it clear that as this is a composite motion they will in any case be voting for someone, either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister, who is prepared to sit down and work with the representatives of Sinn Fein while the IRA remains fully armed.
I welcome all the parties that have been democratically elected to the Assembly, and I am willing to work with them for the economic benefit, health and environmental advancement of all citizens. My policy has always been that every citizen in Northern Ireland is entitled to equality of esteem. In every aspect of life, including social and educational opportunity and justice, everyone should be treated fairly. I am willing to work for that, but I am not prepared — nor is my party — to work with those who want to enter the democratic process and at the same time remain inextricably linked to people who have been responsible for more than 2,000 deaths since 1969 and who retain the means to continue with that process.
Every Member, particularly in the Ulster Unionist Party, must search his conscience to determine whether he is prepared to have his Leader sit down with members of Sinn Fein while the IRA remains fully armed and whether he is prepared to vote for Mr Mallon, who has already declared that to be his position. Members have a duty not only to their parties but also to those who elected them and to their consciences. I pray that they will exercise the latter.

Mr Sean Neeson: May I congratulate David Trimble of the Ulster Unionist Party and Seamus Mallon of the Social Democratic and Labour Party on being nominated for the positions of First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate).
For nearly 30 years my party and I have believed that the real solution to the difficulties that we in Northern Ireland face is the establishment of a power-sharing Assembly, and this is the historic first day of such a body. I am also pleased to see DrPaisley and his party and Mr McCartney and his party in the Chamber for they are a very important part of the political solution to our problems. I hope that they, along with everyone else here, despite differences on some fundamental issues, will attach the greatest importance to making the Assembly work.
I sincerely hope that what is happening here today is a new dawn for Northern Ireland, a time of change. If the politicians give a lead and earn the respect of everyone, we can take a major step forward.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Ar eagla nach bhfuil an tUasal McCartney soiléir faoin mhéid atá an páirtí s’againne a rá ó thaobh an phoist den Chéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) agus LeasChéad-Aire (Ainmnithe), is léir go bhfuilimid anseo le comhoibriú le hionadaithe na bpáirtithe eile sa Tionól seo inniu. Céim chun tosaigh atá sa chruinniú; tá a lán céimeanna eile le glacadh go fóill. Tá Sinn Féin anseo de thairbhe na ndaoine a vótáil ar ár son sa toghchán agus is amhlaidh an cás do na páirtithe eile.
Is iad an Ulster Unionist Party agus an Social Democratic and Labour Party an dá pháirtí is mó sa Tionól, agus is ceart agus is cóir go mbeidh an seans ag ionadaithe ó pháirtithe s’acu bheith sna poist do Chéad-aire (Ainmnithe) agus don LeasChéad-Aire (Ainmnithe). Tá cearta ag an pháirtí s’againne; tá cearta ag na páirtithe eile. Má théimid uilig ar aghaidh ar an bhonn seo, thig linn an institiúid seo, agus institiúidi eile, a thógáil le chéile, chomh maith le hamchlár le hathrú bunúsach a chur i bhfeidhm.
In case Mr McCartney is not sure about Sinn Fein’s position as regards the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, let me make it very clear that we are here to work with representatives of the other parties. Today’s meeting is a step in the right direction, but we have many more steps to take.
Sinn Fein is here because of the mandate it received, as are the other parties. As the Ulster Unionist Party and the Social Democratic and Labour Party are the largest and second-largest groups, in terms of numbers of votes, it is right that they should put forward candidates for these two positions. The Leader of my party has clearly explained our voting intentions.
Sinn Féin, like the other parties, has rights. If we proceed on that basis we can build on this and all the other institutions in accordance with the vital timetable for fundamental change which we all signalled in the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr Peter Robinson: Ms de Brún has said that she considers today’s proceedings a step in the right direction. I do not think that any Unionist is unclear about the direction in which Sinn Fein/IRA want to take this province. Their attitude has been clear. It can be seen in the tombstones around this Province and in the violence that they have presided over as representatives of armed terror. It is a single-minded goal: to take Northern Ireland out of its rightful place within the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland. They are entitled politically to hold that view, but they are not entitled militarily realise it.
The proposal before the Assembly is a joint one. The two people concerned are expected to work in partnership. It is therefore not good enough simply to put two block votes together and push the proposal through. The Assembly is required to use its judgement to determine whether the nominees are capable of working in harness — pulling together, not against each other. The only way we can determine whether they are capable of that is to look at their policies — what they have said they intend to do. One of their chief jobs will be to formulate the programme for a future Government of Northern Ireland.
The complexion of the Executive is already determined. During the referendum and election campaigns the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom made it clear that those who had not substantially decommissioned their illegal weaponry would be barred from the Executive. He said so in Parliament on 6 May and in Northern Ireland on a number of occasions when he was attempting to increase the size of the "Yes" vote. He said "We cannot have a situation in which people who have not given up the path of violence take office in the Northern Ireland Government."
On another occasion he indicated
"People need to know that if they are sitting down in the room of an Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly with other people, they are not sitting there with the guns under the table or outside the door. That cannot happen, and we must make that abundantly clear."
That view was enthusiastically echoed by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr Trimble. He is on record as having said that Ulster Unionists could not tolerate the arrival in office of unreconstructed terrorists. More precisely, the Ulster Unionist Party has indicated that it
"will not serve in the Executive Committee with any party which is not genuinely committed to peace."
It says
"Decommissioning alone, of course, is not enough. Paramilitary organisations must stand down their units, and the IRA must indicate that the war is over."
In an interview with the ‘News Letter’ of 9 May Mr Trimble said
"We have the capacity ourselves to exclude Sinn Fein from office if we so wish because we are going to have a majority in the Assembly. That is clearly going to be the case. Why should people worry what an Assembly will do if they are going to have the majority in it? The Agreement itself is absolutely clear that only people who have a genuine commitment to peaceful means in a democratic process can accept office. Those words were fudged in the past, but they were fudged by Governments. It is not going to be a question for the Government in the future; it is going to be a question for the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives."
As he has said that he does not like fudge, we will be looking for the clearest possible statement indicating whether he is prepared to sit down, even in shadow, with the unreconstructed terrorists about whom he spoke — those who have not decommissioned their illegal weaponry.
His partner has made his position clear. In the House of Commons Mr Mallon said that decommissioning could not be a prerequisite to being part of the Government of Northern Ireland. He said that there were to be no such preconditions. So, on the most important and fundamental issue that will first face them, the First Minister and his deputy are at odds publicly. Before the Assembly votes on this matter it is entitled to know if it is Mr Trimble’s version of the Agreement or Mr Mallon’s that those two gentlemen will follow.

Mr Gerry Adams: May I put a question?

Lord Alderdice: To the Chair?

Mr Gerry Adams: No — to Mr Robinson.

Lord Alderdice: Mr Robinson has now sat down.

Mr Gerry Adams: Perhaps another member of his party would care to take this up.

Lord Alderdice: If a member of that party speaks, you may ask whether he is prepared to take a question.

Mr Gerry Adams: It concerns their attitude to Ulster Resistance and its weapons.

Lord Alderdice: It is not possible to put a question at this point, but later a Member may be prepared to take one.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I believe that a majority of those assembled here and those viewing the proceedings in their homes dearly want this day to be the beginning of a new chapter in the history of Northern Ireland. They deserve the restoration of democracy — accountable government by elected representatives, the rule of law and a healing of divisions.
Northern Ireland is truly at a crossroads. We face a major decision: we can embark upon the road that leads to parliamentary law, or we can continue with paramilitary law. We can decide to engage in the defeat of terrorism or to continue with the current programme of the United Kingdom’s Parliament and Government, which is appeasement of and final capitulation to terrorism.
In memory of almost 3,000 people — men, women and children — who have lost their lives and of tens of thousands of families who have suffered at the hands of terrorists, I pledge myself to use whatever channels are available to me and my party to ensure the defeat of terrorism and appropriate retribution for those who have committed these crimes.
I was elected to this body as a United Kingdom Unionist on a manifesto and a pledge. I would like briefly to read that pledge because it is important that it be on the record:
"We, the United Pro-Union people of Northern Ireland, declare our resolute and determined opposition to the Belfast Agreement.
We reject the abandonment of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty over Northern Ireland in exchange for an amendment of the Irish Constitution that renders Unionists a mere tradition in the Irish nation.
We refuse a Northern Ireland Assembly designed to feed power to All-Ireland institutions and to place in government over our people the delegates of terrorists who remain fully armed.
We recoil with moral contempt from an Agreement which releases back into our community those who have murdered and maimed the innocent, while the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who have protected the peaceful and law-abiding, are to be demoralised and disarmed.
We repudiate all-Ireland bodies with executive powers and expanding authority designed to develop into a factually United Ireland.
We demand, as British citizens, equality of treatment, the protection of our lives, persons and property, and the return of a democratic and accountable government, free from the domination of violent political terrorism, and in which all citizens have equal rights."
It has been extremely difficult for me to sit with the apologists for the murderers of countless people in Northern Ireland, unrepentant and still fully armed.
I come now to the proposal for the election of MrTrimble and MrMallon. At this stage in its history Ulster needs a leader — someone to lead the people and this Assembly, someone who has strength of character and who says what he means and mean what he says.
Mr Trimble has been proposed for the position of First Minister. On 7June1996 Mr Trimble vowed to the Unionist community that he would stop the talks if decommissioning of arms did not start right away. But he reneged on that pledge, as he has done so often. United Kingdom Unionists cannot support someone who makes election pledges that identify him with the Orange Order but as the marching season approaches, reverts to type.
I do not believe that it is possible for two people to walk together unless they agree. How can anyone reasonably propose MrTrimble and MrMallon unless, of course, MrTrimble is prepared to work to MrMallon’s agenda? We are quite clear about MrMallon’s agenda — a united Ireland. MrMallon has no difficulty in sitting down with the representatives of armed terror. He and his party Leader, MrHume, have shown themselves to be extremely hypocritical. MrHume and MrDickSpring said very clearly that they would not allow the representatives of armed terror to come into the process for whatever benefits they could get. They said that there could be no guns under the table, on the table or outside the door.
In front of us here today, in the persons of MrAdams and his cohorts, we have apologists for Sinn Fein/IRA armed terror. It is a shame that such people have been admitted to the process. I shall use all my powers of persuasion to ensure that fellow Unionists do not accept a situation in which these people are part and parcel of the Government of Northern Ireland before they have dismantled their machinery of war and destruction, and I look forward to the day when Unionists will stand united on that.

Mr Sammy Wilson: A number of important issues have been raised today — issues from which we must not run away. My party leader issued an important challenge to the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, who is seeking the position of First Minister. It is a challenge to which he must respond.
Mr Trimble has a severe credibility problem in the Unionist community. It predates his sitting down with Sinn Fein in the Stormont talks a year ago, but it gathered momentum when, as has been pointed out, he broke certain promises in the party’s manifesto. During the referendum campaign he made many promises, pledges and statements which called his credibility into question.
I hope that before the vote MrTrimble will make clear where he stands on the issue of sitting in government with the representatives of IRA/Sinn Fein. He cannot run away from the question, for it is one to which the Democratic Unionists, the United Kingdom Unionists and many members of his own party demand an answer.
Although the Standing Orders do not specify words that we are not allowed to use, I am sure that we may not accuse Members of telling lies. I would not like to be the first person to be thrown out by you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, but I have to say that over the last six weeks Mr Trimble’s credibility has decreased so much that were he Pinocchio he could poke me with his nose from where he is sitting.
Then there are the weasel words of the leader of IRA/Sinn Fein. But I am well used to such words for I have sat for 10 years in Belfast City Council, where his colleagues claim to be democrats while justifying the economic war which has destroyed the commercial heart of Belfast. They even threatened Ministers who attended the Council and in more recent meetings have defended punishment beatings.
IRA/Sinn Fein Members talk about taking steps into a new future. They tell us to think of the people — the very people they have been shooting and bombing for 30 years. Many who sit on the Benches opposite were involved in such activities not just at a distance but directly, but we have heard not one word of apology. They have given no indication that they are sorry, no indication of acceptance that what they did was wrong. Indeed, they arrogantly portray their position as having been justified. That is why they are here.
And in case they have to switch back into the other mode they hold on to the weapons of terror. Can people who have been the victims for the last 30 years share the reins of government with those who have been involved in such actions? That is the crunch question.
As MrMcCartney said, the fundamental weakness of the whole arrangement is the assumption that somehow the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and the representatives of the Social Democratic and Labour Party — people whose positions, at least on paper, on how to deal with those who are involved in terrorism are diametrically opposed — will be able to work in tandem.
Much has been made of the eloquence demonstrated by MrHume when he said that those who had guns on the table, under the table or outside the doors should not be allowed to take part. Of course, as we all expected, MrHume and his party, for their own reasons, have completely renounced that position. Whether you have guns in your pockets, on your shoulder, on the table, under the table, outside the door or anywhere else, you are welcome to take part.
I do not believe that this democratic institution can be all-embracing. There is a fundamental question for the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party: is he, despite all the promises he has given, prepared to operate a warped system which rewards those who have killed, maimed and bombed their way into this House and who retain the right to do so if — to use the words of Ms de Brún — the fundamental change that they demand does not take place?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Dia dhaoibh a chairde.
I want first to wish MrTrimble and MrMallon well in what will obviously be an onerous responsibility for them both over the coming weeks, months and years.
Having listened to the contributions of the United Kingdom Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party, people will perhaps have a better understanding of the position that we have adopted for this election. It is a very good day for us to be here together as the elected representatives of all the people of this part of the island. It is particularly important to us to meet people like MrCedricWilson, who for years stood in splendid isolation at the front of Parliament Buildings waving a placard as we moved back and forth attempting to negotiate on behalf of the people who had given us political responsibility. It is also very good to come across someone like MrSammyWilson, whom I have never met, and it is great to see him today with his clothes on.
MrMcCartney laughed and smirked as someone on this side of the House spoke Irish. What he said suggested that he is very concerned about equality and justice. I certainly hope that he is. However, he looked very intently at the Members behind MrTrimble, as if to intimidate them.

Mr Robert McCartney: The Member should not talk about intimidation.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I hope that he will not manage to intimidate anybody in this Chamber. He certainly will not intimidate the representatives of Sinn Fein, for we are here on the back of a very substantial electoral mandate. We are here on behalf of people who have been discriminated against since the foundation of the Northern state. We are here on behalf of people who want an end to inequality, discrimination, domination and injustice.
When I hear some people interpreting the responsibilities that certain aspects of the Good Friday Agreement lay on MrTrimble I wonder whether they are referring to the document that I have read in recent weeks. MrPeterRobinson can quote words spoken by the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons until he is blue in the face. He can quote from ‘The Guardian’, ‘The Daily Telegraph’, ‘The Sunday Times’ or any other paper, but the only piece of paper which counts here is the Good Friday Agreement. Nowhere in that document is there anything which denies representatives of Sinn Fein places on the executive body — nowhere. Nowhere is there a linkage between decommissioning and the issue of prisoners.
The more we listen to these people the more clearly we realise what their agenda is. They refused to participate in the negotiations, but now they come trundling into this Chamber because they are afraid that they will be left behind. I am afraid that they have been left behind, for if the Ulster Unionist Party keeps its nerve all the people of this island will have a bright future. As elected representatives we have a responsibility to give people hope for themselves and their children.
We have been through a difficult process over the last four or five years. Much work has been done, and many people on the ground appreciate the efforts of those who agreed the Good Friday document. People are watching what is happening here. The will of the more than 70% of people who voted for the Good Friday document brought MrPaisley and MrMcCartney to this Chamber. As seasoned politicians, those Members know that there is a real danger of their being left behind. I welcome them to this forum even though I realise that they will try to prevent or minimise change — indeed, to drag us all back into the Dark Ages. [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: Do you wish to take a point of information, MrMcGuinness?

Mr Martin McGuinness: No. They have spoken long enough.
They have to face up to the reality that there is going to be change, that the change will be fundamental, that they cannot prevent our involvement in this body, or the Executive, that they cannot prevent the establishment of all-Ireland bodies with executive powers, that they cannot prevent the equality agenda, that they cannot prevent promotion of the Irish language, that they cannot prevent the creation of a new police service and that they cannot prevent the release of political prisoners. That is the reality.
What we are charged with is to begin the process. But this is only the start. People will judge us by what happens over the coming days, weeks and months. As I said to MrTrimble at Lancaster House in the aftermath of the beginning of this year when Catholics were being killed right, left and centre in the North of Ireland, there is a responsibility on every elected representative to show goodwill and do everything in his power to prevent a return to what has happened in the past. I am acutely aware of my responsibility.
There is also a responsibility on MrMcCartney, who is always telling us that he is an intelligent man.

Mr Robert McCartney: I do not.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Yes, he does all the time.
We want him to be a smart man. We want him to recognise that there is a future for our children. Whatever else he may be, he must be a democrat and accept reality.
[Remarks made at this point may be subject to legal proceedings and have therefore been omitted.]
Sinn Fein has arrived in this building, and Unionists have been compelled by the votes of the people to come. Even in opposition, Unionist Members will be part of the change in this island.
Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

Mr Patrick Roche: Mr McGuinness has done an enormous service to the pro-Union electorate by laying bare what he perceives to be the reality of the agreement which MrTrimble and other Unionist leaders endorsed.
The agreement has been well described as a mechanism for transition to a united Ireland. There is no doubt that in it MrTrimble conceded the fundamental principles of Irish Nationalism. The document declares that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, but the concessions to the principles of Nationalism made by MrTrimble render that state of affairs entirely illegitimate. Then he agreed to two crucial institutions — the North/South Ministerial Council and the Intergovernmental Conference, which are designed to bring about conditions in which Unionist agreement to a united Ireland will be a mere formality.
It seems, on the basis of the proposal made to us today by MrTaylor, that the Ulster Unionist Party is about to make a further concession — one that is even more fundamental than those to Irish Nationalists. Apparently Ulster Unionists are about to concede the principles of democracy and the integrity of the rule of law.
MrTrimble has been proposed for the position of First Minister, with MrMallon as his deputy. As has been said, the position of MrMallon is entirely clear: he is committed to a united Ireland, and he does not require Sinn Fein/IRA to hand in any arms — even rusty ones. That suggests that the UlsterUnionist Party too does not require any decommissioning, now or in the future.
MrTrimble must make the situation absolutely clear to the pro-Union electorate if he is prepared to sit down in an Executive governing Northern Ireland without first requiring decommissioning and to corrupt the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law by doing so. There should be substantial decommissioning of the IRA terrorist arsenal before the Executive begins. That is the fundamental issue that MrTrimble must address today.

Mr Nigel Dodds: It was very interesting to hear a representative of IRA/Sinn Fein chastising MrMcCartney and others about the equality agenda and the Irish language. Such people make much of the Irish language, but in other forums, such as Belfast City Council, they never mention it. Typically, they are playing to the cameras and to the Gallery. Of course, as has been pointed out, many Sinn Fein Members do not understand Irish. [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: MrMaskey wishes to make a point of order.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I hope it is a point of order.

Lord Alderdice: I will judge that when I hear it.

Mr Alex Maskey: I want to make a point for MrDodds’s information. The Irish language hasbeen used by Sinn Fein members for years — 15years in Belfast City Council and other councils — and it will continue to be used by them.

Lord Alderdice: I made it clear at the beginning that while I am in the Chair Members may speak in Irish, Ulster-Scots or any other language so long as they translate into English. That request has been met by those speaking in Irish. [Interruption] DrPaisley may well be able to regale us in Latin or Greek, but he will have to translate, for I am not familiar with such languages.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Are you ruling that that was not a point of order?

Lord Alderdice: I have taken a number of false points of order today.

Mr Nigel Dodds: MrMaskey may be trying to cover his embarrassment in front of his party, but that does not alter the facts that I have outlined. They are on the record, as you, Sir, as a former member of Belfast City Council, will know.
The issues have been laid fairly and squarely before the House. We are being asked to vote on a package. We know where MrMallon and the Social Democratic and Labour Party stand, but we have yet to hear where the Ulster Unionist Party’s nominee for the post of First Minister stands.
Will this proposal be put to the vote today without an explanation of MrTrimble’s position or, indeed, of MrMallon’s? It is especially important that we hear from MrTrimble in view of policies that he has enunciated and then reneged on.
Is he going to treat the Assembly with contempt? Will he refuse to answer questions about the most important issue before the House today? Is he going to remain silent with regard to the crucial question (whether he is prepared as First Minister to sit in government with unrepentant supporters of murder and violence — people, who, in the words of the Prime Minister, are inextricably linked to the IRA)?
I say to MrTrimble that it is through us, as elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, that those people should have an answer. It is not good enough to fudge this issue or to remain silent. Mr Trimble must present himself and explain his position. That is the purpose of this debate, and it would be amazing if he did not tell us where he stands.
Reference has been made to the Agreement that was signed and to the pledges that were made by the Prime Minister. It was not MrTrimble or the other pro-Agreement Unionists who won the "Yes" vote; it was Tony Blair. The Prime Minister was never out of Northern Ireland during the last days of the campaign, and he managed to persuade people on the Unionist side.
Of course, he did not need to persuade anybody on the Nationalist or Republican side; they would have had to be certifiably insane not to vote "Yes" given the concessions to IRA/Sinn Fein and Nationalism. But he had a real job persuading the Unionist people. How did he do it? Through hand-written pledges on a series of issues — prisoners, decommissioning and Government positions for IRA/Sinn Fein.
It is time for those who made the pledges (the British Government and TonyBlair) and those who sold them, those who went around saying "Yes, we agree with those pledges" (the Ulster Unionist Party and MrTrimble) to come clean and say what they will do if this proposal goes through and MrTrimble becomes the First Minister (Designate). It is pay-up time. MrTrimble must answer these questions before the vote is taken. He cannot fudge yet again. Having said one thing or remained silent before the election, he cannot take an entirely different course now.
We in the Democratic Unionist Party are in this House not because we are afraid of anything or anybody but because we were elected in substantial numbers by the people of Northern Ireland. We made it clear that we would never negotiate with IRA/Sinn Fein, and we have not gone back on our pledge. But we have always said in councils and elsewhere that we would never run away from any elected body, that we would confront those who want to take us down a united-Ireland route.
Sinn Fein Member MrAdams said that he was glad to see us. He welcomed everybody. I think of a Member of a previous Assembly — MrEdgarGraham, who was murdered by the IRA. Although not a member of the Democratic Unionist Party, MrGraham was a close friend of mine. People who are lecturing us today supported, condoned, defended and gloated over that murder and the murder of other elected representatives.
But we know their pedigree. We remember what they have done, and we note that they have yet to apologise or to undertake any sort of redress, such as decommissioning. They will not say that the war is over, yet they demand all the benefits of the agreement. Let MrTrimble tell us whether they will reap those benefits.

Mr Mark Durkan: In seconding the nomination of MrTrimble and MrMallon for the posts of First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate), MrHume indicated the strength of the Social Democratic and Labour Party’s confidence in SeamusMallon.
MrMallon and MrTrimble have a track record in relation to the agreement that provided for this body and other institutions to be set up. They have shown that they can work together despite the many difficulties that we all make for each other and the differences that we all brought into this Chamber throughout the negotiations.
SeamusMallon and DavidTrimble brought their differences, but they were able to work together and with others from all the parties that wanted to find ways and means of creating the situation in which we find ourselves today.
Exchanges such as those we have witnessed here — both direct and indirect — were written off as impossible by the decriers of the talks process. The people who walked away from the talks are also decrying this nomination. It is because of their track record that we are eager to support it.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will shoulder onerous responsibilities. It is clear that some people intend to make life for them and others in this Chamber as difficult as they can. The First and Deputy First Ministers will not be in a position to create difficulties, but they will have to resolve many of those generated by others.
We pledge our support for them as they work to ensure the full implementation of all aspects of the Agreement — in particular, those in which they have a central, direct role. There are some matters — prisoner releases, the review of policing, and decommissioning, for example — in which they do not have such a role. Neither is there a direct role for the Executive. Thus much of the debate so far in relation to the nomination has been about matters that are completely outside of the remit of the posts we are discussing.
Several Members have referred to SeamusMallon’s position on decommissioning. One said that he had made his position clear: he was no longer interested in decommissioning. We are nominating SeamusMallon for Deputy First Minister because he is totally committed to ensuring that agreement, including accord on the six paragraphs on decommissioning, will be achieved. We want to see decommissioning taking place, and SeamusMallon wants it to be achieved within the timescale laid down in the agreement.
The agreement refers to a workable basis for achieving the decommissioning of illegally held arms. But no workable basis will be achieved through the politics of "Stand and deliver!". That was tried and it failed, and if it is tried again it will fail again. The agreement offers a different context in which the decommissioning that is so important to people can be realised.
The posts in question were deliberately created by those of us who took part in the negotiations. They are intended to be at the heart of the new arrangements in the North and to have a pivotal role in the relationship between those arrangements, the arrangements in the South and the East/West arrangements. Much rests on the nomination. It is important that that be recognised, but so far the debate has concentrated on all sorts of extraneous matters.
It will not be easy for MrMallon and MrTrimble. There will be differences between them, as in any similar situation, but they have shown a capacity to overcome differences, not just between themselves but also between a wide range of parties and individuals.
We look forward to approval of their nomination by the necessary majority, to the Assembly’s working under their leadership, and to their co-operating with all parties. They have a duty to ensure partnership in the Administration and in dealings with the Assembly. They have particular duties with regard to the North/South and East/West arrangements.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mark Durkan: No.
As MrHume said, this joint nomination represents the essence of the Good Friday Agreement. We are talking about making decisions with each other rather than making the demands of each other that have characterised so much of this debate. All of this is not just about reconciliation between Unionist and Nationalist, non-Unionist and non-Nationalist; the SDLP — SeamusMallon in particular — is committed to achieving reconciliation and co-operation between those who voted "Yes" and those who voted "No".
It is in that spirit that we commend the nomination. We pledge our support, not just today but also in the future, and we ask all parties, whether abstaining, voting for or voting against, to co-operate with the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) as they work to bring to fruition the arrangements for which the agreement provides.

Mr Patrick Roche: Will the Member take a point?

Lord Alderdice: He has finished.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I would like at the outset to welcome Social Democratic and Labour Party Members back to the place they vacated so ignominiously last year. I refer, of course, to the Forum. They are anxious to welcome us; we can reciprocate by welcoming them back to the place that they abandoned many months ago.
Many people in Northern Ireland, whether filled with foreboding about the outworking of this agreement or in the "Yes" camp, might have looked upon these proceedings as presenting a slight possibility of our overcoming problems and working for the greater good, but it is apparent from the language used by the political wing of the Provisional IRA that they are determined that it should not be so.
Mr Trimble has many questions to answer — questions that have been posed several times since he was first mentioned as a possible First Minister. So far he has declined to answer them. Is he prepared to sit in an Executive, in shadow or substantial form, while the fully armed military wing of an organisation that will be there remains functional and ready to return to killing? Is he prepared to sit in Cabinet with an organisation whose military wing still engages in punishment beatings on the streets of Northern Ireland? Or is he prepared to demand substantial decommissioning before such a step could be contemplated, as the Prime Minister said he would? The Assembly and — even more important — the people of Northern Ireland need answers to those questions.
The people do want change. It is entirely wrong for anybody to say that my party is against change. But what we want is change for the better — change for the good of the community, which for almost three decades has been subjected to the terror and murder of the military colleagues of people who now sit here. Throughout NorthernIreland our community has been systematically discriminated against in jobs, in the arts and in funding for sporting organisations. It goes on even as I speak.
We are for change, but it is change in a direction that many in the House do not wish to contemplate. But we shall no doubt come to that in the future. The fundamental point, which MrTrimble needs to address, is whether he is prepared to enter government as First Minister with Sinn Fein/IRA and with MrMallon as his deputy while a fully armed military wing remains operational in NorthernIreland.

Lord Alderdice: The two candidates themselves have not had an opportunity to address any of these questions, and the circumstances are somewhat unusual. They now have a chance to respond.

Mr Seamus Mallon: May I first thank the Members who proposed and who seconded my election for their very kind and generous words — all true. [Laughter] I thank them sincerely, and I thank all the other Members who have spoken in the debate. I say so especially because, whatever our difficulties, whatever the animosities — and of those there are plenty — there is one immutable fact that we all have to confront: if we are to be serious about every political philosophy, we will have to work out a means of living together here in Northern Ireland on a basis of agreement, of consent, of equality, of justice.
I believe that there is a will to do so. Every political party, whatever its position, can play a full role in the Assembly, in the new North/South bodies, in the Council of the Isles and abroad for the benefit of the people on this island.
I welcome the anticipated appointment of DavidTrimble as First Minister. I say to Unionism that there always comes a time when a man must take responsibility for his people and for the country in which he lives. In my view MrTrimble has done that with courage, dignity and integrity and in a way that, as we proceed, will inspire confidence among the Nationalist community.
Today I have a great sense of humility — not a virtue with which I am normally imbued. Anybody setting out on such a task must do so in a spirit of humility. I also have an awesome sense of responsibility, not just as Deputy First Minister to MrDavidTrimble as First Minister but also to my own party, which I thank most sincerely for its confidence — especially the party leader, who has done so much, against the odds, to secure the process and bring it to this point. The well-being of all the people on this island is at stake — their happiness and safety and their role in the new society that we want to build.
Let me answer one of the questions that have been asked. I stand by the agreement that we all signed on Good Friday — not just the bits I like but also the bits I do not like. I stand by my commitment to an entirely peaceful process. I stand by the commitment to ensure that the new institutions will work, free of violence and the threat of violence. I stand by my commitment and my party’s commitment to work with all the people of Northern Ireland, for the good of all the people of the North of Ireland.
With regard to decommissioning, prisoners, policing, justice, equality and the institutions, I stand by the word given by the SDLP when the agreement was signed. I believe that the operation of this body will ensure the attainment of all these goals, including decommissioning.
There will be difficulties, but we all can help each other. My difficulties are DavidTrimble’s, and DavidTrimble’s are mine. They are also the difficulties of the United Kingdom Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Women’s Coalition and the Progressive Unionist Party, for we all share one thing — our vulnerability. There is not a Member, male or female, in this House who is not vulnerable.
We also share the conviction that now, at the end of the century, we are going to change life in theNorth of Ireland. Together we will tackle the problems. Nobody who believes that for this generation change is not just an option but an imperative will be excluded.
I look forward to working with MrDavidTrimble. I have known him for a long time. We have not always agreed, and there will still be times when we disagree, but the disagreements will be sorted out face to face, for I am sure that his back is sore enough at the moment. I pledge to him, to my own party, to every other party here and to the people of the North of Ireland that we will do everything in our power to help every Member to effect the changes that have been agreed and so open up a new vision and a new imagination for a new century.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I will always give way to MrWilson.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I am very grateful.
Mr Mallon is about to conclude his speech. It would be helpful to Members were he to answer the question about decommissioning. Will he tell us what exactly is his position so that we can match it against that of MrTrimble?

Mr Seamus Mallon: As always, I am impressed by MrWilson’s grasp of detail.
Yes, I want to see decommissioning. Yes, I want it to happen quickly. Yes, it has to be done. Yes, I think that those who hold arms, as well as the people who are associated with them, can help the process of which we are all a part. I cannot be any clearer than that.
We all have reason enough for grievances. We can all engage in "whataboutery". We can all point out what has been done to us and to our communities. We can all point out how we have suffered. We can all point out how the other fellow is always wrong. This time let us come together to do the right thing for the people of this island, especially those in Northern Ireland, who elected us.

Rt Hon David Trimble: May I too start by thanking the Members who moved and who seconded the motion. I am grateful to them and, indeed, to others for their remarks about myself. It was not my intention to speak, for I thought that in some respects it would be inappropriate to do so. I am not actively canvassing or seeking appointment.
The Ulster Unionist Party has always recognised and accepted its responsibilities, and as a member of the party I have accepted and discharged responsibilities. However, it would be inappropriate for me to sing my own praises or to induce Members to vote in a particular way. They must vote as they see fit.
Another reason for not commenting in this debate is that, in view of the situation in Northern Ireland — the past, the present and the future we hope to have — there is a host of things that should be considered. However, in the time that is available today one can touch on just a few.
My Colleague MrTaylor has said that he hopes that we as a community are now coming out of the morass in which we have been stuck for the last 30 years. It is a hope that has not yet been realised. The morass is political violence and terrorism on far too great a scale and from far too many quarters. Many of us have seen it far too close. Reference has been made to a good friend of mine who was murdered. I was just a short distance away, and I had to identify his body. Many other people have had a similar experience, so we know what we are dealing with. We know the reality of the violence from which this community has suffered.
The morass to which I have referred consists not just of political violence but also of political impotence. By virtue of direct rule, people and their elected representatives were rendered unable to deal with certain issues. The community was disconnected from the rest of the body politic. That had a negative effect on attitudes and on the way the community operated. We hope that we are coming out of the morass, but at this stage success is not guaranteed. We all know the problems, and we ought to realise that they could overcome us. The problems will not all be solved overnight by the wave of a magic wand. We will have to work at them.
In the course of this debate a question has been put repeatedly. Of course, those who put it were notmaking a genuine enquiry. The question was not put by people seeking information or guidance; it was simply another cheap political stunt by people who cannot tell the difference between cheap political stunts and serious attempts to deal with issues. However, I will address it. DavidTrimble is merely one of 28 Ulster Unionist Members. All 28 have come here on the same manifesto — the same manifesto and the same position.
Those who put the question could have found the answer stated very simply in the manifesto. The relevant section begins
"Before any terrorist organisation and/or its political wing can benefit from the proposals contained in the Agreement on the release of terrorist prisoners and the holding of ministerial office in the Assembly, the commitment to exclusively peaceful and non-violent means must be established. The Ulster Unionist Party will be using various criteria that are objective, meaningful and verifiable to judge whether this is being achieved."
The manifesto sets out at length what those criteria are, and the relevant section concludes
"Ulster Unionists will not sit in Government with unreconstructed terrorists."
The first important thing is to establish commitment to the democratic process. People must state that they will not, now or in the future, use violence to achieve their goals. They must commit themselves irrevocably to the democratic process. There are criteria by which that can be established, but the important thing is to keep sight of the objective and not allow ourselves to focus so much on one thing. We do not want to end up being hoist by our own petard.
The second important thing is to make reference to unreconstructed terrorists. A number of Members who are here today have done terrible things. I do not need to elaborate, though I should say that those concerned are not all in one corner of the Chamber. Many awful things have happened. People must accept responsibility for what they have done, and one hopes that responsibility is also noted by the Government, the state and the legal process. However, those institutions are imperfect, and there are people who have done terrible things for which they have not been made amenable. Some of them are here.
We are not saying, and we have never said, that the fact that someone has a certain past means that he cannot have a future. We have always acknowledged that it is possible for people to change. That is fundamental to one’s view of society. Indeed, if I were in the habit of using religious metaphors I could find many that would be appropriate. It is not my habit to mix religion with politics if that can be avoided, but Members will realise what I am referring to. Because of the situation in this society it is desirable that all Members with a terrible past should change and should demonstrate that they have changed.
The Agreement that we have put in place is inclusive. But that is nothing new, for it stems from the proposals given to TomKing in 1987, which referred to partnership administrations based on proportionality.

Mr Peter Robinson: But excluding terrorist representatives.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Of course.
Proportionality is inclusive, and it is right that it should apply only to those who are committed to the democratic process. That was the position then, and it is the position now. There is an opportunity for people to take part in the process if they have shown that they are committed to peaceful means and democracy.
I underline these points not out of a desire to exclude but simply to emphasise the things that need to be done. The sooner there is a realisation of that need, the better. Beginning the task will enable us all to move together. I am determined that we shall all move forward. I do not want society to throw away the opportunity to rise out of the morass in which it has been stuck.
To people who ask if the process will succeed I cannot give an answer at this stage, just as I could not give an answer during the talks. What I can say now, as then, is that the process will not fail for want of effort on the part of the Ulster Unionist Party. If people end up being excluded it will be because of their own failure to meet requirements — not because of any deliberate action on our part.
I hope we are coming out of the forest. We certainly deserve to, and we have the opportunity. There is something great to be gained by all sections of the community, and, like MrMallon I am conscious of the responsibilities that will come to us, perhaps very soon. I am conscious of our obligation to all of society to discharge those responsibilities, and I know that it will not be easy.
There will be difficulties, but we have started on the long march towards a better future, and we are determined to continue. We are determined to succeed for the benefit of all society. This opportunity must not be discarded.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Everybody will be glad to know that the Prime Minister is to be here tomorrow and that there will be OBEs galore for those who do his handiwork.

Lord Alderdice: The Rt Hon David Trimble and MrSeamusMallon are the only candidates proposed for the positions of First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) respectively.
Question put.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. Unless an announcement is made, Members who are outside the Chamber will not know that a vote is about to be taken.

Lord Alderdice: The arrangement under the Standing Orders is for an announcement that a vote will begin in three minutes. I understand the point you are making. It is one that should be addressed by a Committee on Standing Orders. There is no bell. In this respect the Initial Standing Orders are unsatisfactory, but they are the only ones we have.

Mr Robert McCartney: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. This is probably one of the most important votes. If there has been a breakdown in the equipment to alert Members that a vote is to be taken, that is regrettable. There is absolutely no reason not to give some leeway in the circumstances.

Lord Alderdice: Mr McCartney, either I was unclear or you misunderstand. There has been no breakdown in the equipment. There is an inadequacy in the Standing Orders. There is no bell because none is required by the Standing Orders. All that is required is that an announcement be made that a vote will be taken in three minutes. The filibuster has gone on long enough. All those who were on errands should now be present.
The Ayes and Noes will be counted under the designations that were given earlier.

Mr Gerry Adams: On a point of order, A Chathaoirligh. I have explained in some detail why we are deploying this tactic. The reason is clear from the antics on the other side of the House. I have given notice that my party, while supporting absolutely the right of both the Ulster Unionist Party and the Social Democratic and Labour Party to take up their positions, will be abstaining.

Lord Alderdice: Will you stand, please.

Mr Gerry Adams: Sorry. That too should be dealt with under Standing Orders.

Lord Alderdice: That is why they are called Standing Orders!

Mr Gerry Adams: Yes — that is why I said it.
My point of order is that my party will be abstaining in this vote for the reasons I have given. You did not refer to that; you referred simply to recording assent or dissent.

Lord Alderdice: Yes, perhaps I should have clarified that. Anything other than an Aye or a No will not be counted.

Mr Peter Robinson: Do what is done in Castlereagh.

Lord Alderdice: I do not think I will follow that. Ayes and Noes are the only responses that will be noted. There is currently no provision for noting abstentions.

Mr Jim Shannon: Is the Ulster-Scots word "nah" acceptable?

Lord Alderdice: As I said earlier, where any language other than English is used, it would be courteous to provide a translation.

Mr Jim Shannon: For those who do not understand, let me explain that "nah" is the Ulster-Scots for "no".

Lord Alderdice: I entirely understand what you are saying, and I repeat that when any language other than English is used, a translation should be given for the sake of other Members who may not understand it. Otherwise it will not be noted.

Mr Gerry Adams: Is there an Ulster-Scots word for "yes"?
The Assembly divided: Ayes 61 (Nationalist 24; Unionist 30; Other 7); Noes 27.
AYES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, JoeByrne, John Dallat, ArthurDoherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, JohnFee, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, DenisHaughey, Joe Hendron, John Hume, PatriciaLewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, EddieMcGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs Jnr, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, EsmondBirnie, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, RobertCoulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, DavidErvine, Sam Foster, John Gorman, DerekHussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, John Taylor, DavidTrimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wilson.
Other
Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, SeanNeeson.
NOES
Unionist
Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, BoydDouglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, RobertMcCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian R K Paisley, Ian Paisley Jnr, EdwinPoots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, DenisWatson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, SammyWilson.

Lord Alderdice: The total number of votes cast validly was 88. The number of Nationalist votes in favour was 24. As the total number of Nationalist votes was 24, the Nationalist vote in favour was 100%. The total number of Unionist votes was 57; the number of Unionist Ayes was 30, giving 52.63%. The total number of Ayes, at 61, is 69.3% of 88.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That The Rt Hon David Trimble MP be First Minister (Designate) and Mr Seamus Mallon MP be Deputy First Minister (Designate).

Lord Alderdice: I now ask TheRt HonDavidTrimble and MrSeamusMallon, having been chosen by the Assembly as First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate), to come forward and make an affirmation to the Assembly.
I first ask MrTrimble, elected as First Minister, to make the affirmation in the form prescribed.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I, David Trimble, affirm to the Assembly my commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, my opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose, my commitment to work in good faith to bring into being the arrangements set out in the agreement reached in the multi-party negotiations on 10April1998 and my commitment to observe the spirit of the Pledge of Office.

Lord Alderdice: I now ask Mr Mallon, having been duly elected as Deputy First Minister, to make the affirmation.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I, Seamus Mallon, affirm to the Assembly my commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, my opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose, my commitment to work in good faith to bring about the arrangements set out in the agreement reached in the multi-party negotiations on 10April1998 and my commitment to observe the spirit of the Pledge of Office set out in Annex B to the Initial Standing Orders.

Lord Alderdice: May I, on this momentous occasion, on my own behalf, on behalf of the Assembly and on behalf, I have no doubt, of the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland, congratulate you on being elected the first First Minister and the first Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I want to point out that you do not have the right to speak for the Assembly. You can only speak for those in the Assembly who voted for these gentlemen. Let us get that straight. The Speaker of the House of Commons would not dare to say that she speaks on behalf of the House. She speaks as the Speaker of the House, not on behalf of the House. Some people vote according to their convictions, and you cannot take to yourself the right to speak on behalf of the Assembly.

Lord Alderdice: Thank you very much.

Assembly: Committee on Standing Orders

Motion made:
That in accordance with paragraph 15 of Initial Standing Orders the Assembly shall establish a Committee whose terms of reference, quorum and composition are set out below.
Terms of Reference:
To assist the Assembly in its consideration of Standing Orders and report to the Assembly by 14September1998.
 
— [The Initial Presiding Officer]

Mr Peter Robinson: Can you, Sir, indicate how we could appropriately deal with the three people who might be described as Independents? It is somewhat unfair that both the Women’s Coalition and the Progressive Unionist Party, each of which has two Members, have a representative on this Committee while the three Independents, who have broadly similar views, have none. Is the Assembly willing to consider the matter and give some representation to this group?

Lord Alderdice: Mr Robinson, we have interim Standing Orders, and, as you know, they are the only rules under which we can work. The suggestion you make can be considered by the Assembly. We can only make this decision for the present. There were meetings conducted by the Chief Whips, including the Chief Whip of your party. These matters cannot be considered further at this juncture, but they may be developed at a later stage.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. The Assembly has a right to honour everyone in it, and there is nothing in the Standing Orders against our putting anyone on this Committee — nothing whatsoever. As the then solitary member of my party in the House of Commons I was given my place. And I reminded Mr McGrady today of how some of his members in the same position were not passed over.
It would be scurrilous of this Assembly not to recognise three Members who need a voice on all Committees. I protest vigorously that they were not told about any of the arrangements. The reason they were so treated is that they were against the Agreement. It was a political decision. A nominee of their choice should be added to this Committee.
Some other Members would be up in arms if they were excluded in this way. Let us remember what happened in the Forum. Fair is fair. These three Members deserve to be represented.

Mr Maurice Morrow: As you, MrInitial Presiding Officer, said, the Democratic Unionist Party was at that meeting. But the composition of the Committees was not agreed. The Social Democratic and Labour Party was getting three Members but was not represented at the second meeting. So what we have in front of us was not agreed by the Whips’ today.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I endorse what MrMorrow has said. In fact, I raised this matter with you, Sir, in the belief that it should be put to the Assembly today. I am sure that many Members, including ProfMcWilliams and MrErvine, are keen to defend the rights of the smaller groups and parties, as they did in the Forum and in the negotiations.

Mr David Ervine: Mr Wilson will remember that at a meeting yesterday I addressed this issue on behalf of those Members in a position similar to ours.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I am glad. I was trying to provoke the Member into saying publicly what he had said privately. It would be easy to determine the view of the House by asking whether any Member has any objection to the three Independents’ having a representative. If not, is there any difficulty?

Lord Alderdice: Yes, there is a difficulty. With regard to Committees of the kind that we are discussing, Standing Order 15(2) states
"each party with at least two members shall have at least one seat on each Committee."
If the three Independents wish to be represented, there is no reason why the matter cannot be dealt with at a subsequent meeting. The problem about dealing with it now is that, as MrMorrow said, the Whips did not agree entirely on all the matters. Indeed, right up to three minutes before the start of this meeting they could not even resolve who should propose the motion.
If the motion were to be proposed as prescribed, the Initial Presiding Officer would have to take responsibility for moving it. Furthermore, if an amendment were to be proposed to any item, it would, under the Standing Orders, have to be notified in writing to the office of the Initial Presiding Officer at least one hour prior to the commencement of the day’s business. All the Whips were aware that the list did not contain a recommendation for the representation of these three Members, but I received nothing in writing one hour, or even half an hour, before. The matter has only now been raised.
We have no option but to proceed with the Standing Orders as they are. The Assembly would be entirely within its rights if it were to reject the motion as unsatisfactory, but at this juncture the only propositions are those that are before us. However much I might like to do so, I cannot receive amendments, for the time for acceptance has expired.

Mr Peter Robinson: There will often be differences in the Assembly, but let us not try to create difficulties when there is no need. The rule to which you refer does not exclude the possibility of the Assembly’s nominating one of these three individuals to the Committee. It sets out a right for those parties that have two members or more to be represented, but it does not prevent the Assembly from exercising its powers for the purposes of its own business. We have had a lot of talk about how inclusive this process should be; now let us have some evidence.

Lord Alderdice: What you say is absolutely correct, and if an amendment to that effect had been received in time, it could have been put to the Assembly. But none was received, and that is the dilemma in which I find myself. Indeed, the other matters too were not proceeded with. It would be desirable to achieve agreement on these questions, but under Standing Orders I have had to proceed with the agenda items as set out in the appendix.

Mr Robert McCartney: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I understood your first comment in response to DrPaisley to be that the three Members do not have a right. You did not say that they have a right which they failed to exercise. In fact, you stated quite clearly, and quoted Standing Order 15(2) as saying, that each party with at least two Members shall have at least one seat on each Committee. A party with two Members is not limited to one place on a Committee. It could have two, but it must have at least one. So there is nothing whatever to prevent an individual from being represented on a Committee.
Initially you said that the individuals were not entitled at all, but you have moved to the subsidiary ground that the motion was not tabled in time. I submit that the Assembly can agree at this stage to make an amendment that is in accordance with all the rules of natural justice and does not contravene any of the preliminary Standing Orders.

Lord Alderdice: I said not thatthey could not be represented but that theydidnot have a right to be represented. That is what theprovision says. In other words, as MrPeterRobinson points out, if it were decided that one or two or all of them should be on a Committee, that would be entirely possible, but other representations would have to be reduced as the size of the Committee is also laid down. But the matter would have to be discussed. Parties of two or more have certain entitlements, which must be respected. This group of three could turn themselves into a party or make some other arrangement. The Committee on Standing Orders may have to pay particular attention to individuals who are not members of parties.
I know a place where there are Cross-Benchers who do not take any party Whip but have a convenor. They do not have all the privileges that parties enjoy, but neither do they have all the responsibilities. There are some things that the three individuals here do not have, but I understand that they have reasonably commodious accommodation — much more than individual party members.
We must try to ensure that all these matters are dealt with properly, but that could not be done without a Committee on Standing Orders, whose appointment will require a resolution, either today or at the next sitting — perhaps on 14September — which will necessitate changes in the other membership.
It is not possible to move to an amendment now, because it was not put forward one hour ago. Members who are getting to their feet were aware of the situation.

Mr Eddie McGrady: In order to assist the work of the Assembly and allow it to proceed with its business, we could take cognisance of the representations made for the three Members. On behalf of my party’s Chief Whip, I will be very conscious of that factor.
Irrespective of the arguments that have been put forward in this debate, we are circumscribed by the Standing Orders before us, which state that the maximum number shall be 18. I understand that the allocation of positions to parties is also prescribed by the Standing Orders. Nevertheless, 18 is the maximum number. We will be sympathetic to representations, but some of the other parties — particularly those that are advocating the rights of the three individuals — may have to cede one of their seats in the meantime. This could, however, be addressed at the first meeting of the Standing Orders Committee.

Lord Alderdice: I have taken a number of interventions as points of order although they have been more like substantive contributions. MrMaskey is the only Member to have put his name forward to speak in the debate.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. I would like to draw your attention to Standing Order 9(1), which is the one that, as you indicated, appears to be blocking any change to the proposal as it appears on the Order Paper. If there were a will on the part of the Assembly to have a Committee including one of the three representatives, could we not vote down the proposal that is on the Order Paper? A new proposal could then be put that was within the current Standing Orders.

Lord Alderdice: I shall respond to that point of order and then call MrMaskey.
Such a matter could perhaps be dealt with — I would have to take advice — by leave of the Assembly, which is usually taken as requiring unanimity. That will be the case when the Assembly has full power to decide its own business. At present, agenda items are prescribed by the Secretary of State.
At this juncture we are not entirely free in that respect. For example, even an Adjournment debate requires the approval of the Secretary of State. Indeed, such a letter was received just before this sitting. What you say would be correct if there were unanimity in the Assembly, but there would probably need to be a suspension to seek the Secretary of State’s approval.

Mr Eddie McGrady: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer.

Lord Alderdice: We should seriously consider whether the best way to conduct a debate is by raising sporadic points of order. However, I will allow one or two more.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Sir, for your tolerance. You want to facilitate progress in the Assembly, and you can rule me out of order if you wish. However, it is proper to suggest that one of the three Independents should attend the Standing Orders Committee as an observer until the Standing Orders can be amended in accordance with the will of the Assembly.

Lord Alderdice: I have no idea whether the Initial Presiding Officer has the power to indicate that someone may attend in that way until the matter has been resolved. I shall have to take advice. It is not a matter on which I sought a legal opinion in advance. I am certainly not antagonistic towards the proposition, but I will have to do two things in following it up: first, seek legal advice about whether I am in a position to take such action; secondly, consult the Whips of all the parties and, of course, the three Independents to see if what you suggest might be a way of resolving matters.
I certainly do not want to create difficulties, but it is crucial that we stick to the Initial Standing Orders, though we did not design them.

Several Members: rose.

Lord Alderdice: I can take only one more point of order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The original draft of the Order Paper listed four Ulster Unionist Party members, three Social Democratic and Labour Party members, three people from the Democratic Unionist Party, three from Sinn Fein and one each from the other parties. I do not understand how that can suddenly have changed today. I understand that the meeting was called for 11 o’clock. My Whip was there, but it did not begin until 11.30am. Even though the Social Democratic and Labour Party’s Whip was not at the meeting, we have these changes. I understand that party members had business in Londonderry.

Mr John Hume: They did not.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: That is what we were told at the meeting.

Mr John Hume: This shows how much the Member is told.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Initial Presiding Officer told us, and we believe what he says until we have reason to do otherwise.
I want to know why the representation of the Social Democratic and Labour Party was changed. Also, the Democratic Unionist Party, with 20Members, has the same representation as SinnFein, which has 18 Members. That is unfair, and it must be looked into. The way in which this motion has been handled is obstructing the Assembly’s business.
I regret the attitude of some people. The three Members in question need representation. They do not know what is going on. I would go along with MrMcGrady’s proposal. It is better than nothing, though the Independents should be there by right. I would understand it if this motion were defeated and another one proposed. That would be quite in order. The Secretary of State would be unlikely to quibble if that were the wish of the Assembly, which she says she wants to bolster.

Lord Alderdice: I will take MrMcCartney’s point of order and then reply to both.

Mr Robert McCartney: It is a very short point. I received the Order Paper at 2.05 pm, as did most other Members, and it would have been very difficult to give the notice required for an amendment. I was debating in the Chamber along with everybody else.
You have your Standing Orders, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, but circumstances alter cases. There have been all sorts of alarms and diversions on this the Assembly’s first day, and documents have arrived late — in some cases, when Members were already in the Chamber. In those circumstances how could the hour’s notice which, apparently, these Standing Orders require have been given?

Lord Alderdice: I am grateful to Members for pointing out the difficulty in which I and some others were put. Several meetings of Whips were called, but there was not a full attendance at all of them.
Several other issues were considered. One which has not been brought to the attention of Members is that there is no provision for the Initial Presiding Officer to be on the Standing Orders Committee. That may present a problem. It is one of the difficulties of moving so rapidly from the election into the Assembly itself. I am somewhat at the mercy of rules that have been set down. Having tried hard to work them over the last 36hours, I realise that they are not very satisfactory. While the issue was raised in a general way, there was no specific proposal to deal with it.
I am not prepared to continue the debate by way of points of order. Arrangements that were put in place were accepted by the Whips, so I ask that any Member who wishes to speak make that known. If there is a way to resolve the problem, let us try to find it. I would be grateful for any proposals. If there is a suggestion that seems to have more support than MrMcGrady’s, the sitting could be suspended so that we might look into it. Otherwise Members will have to vote on the issue at the end of the debate.

Mr Alex Maskey: Most Members who have spoken think that there are shortcomings in the interim Standing Orders. We raised some of these with you, MrInitial Presiding Officer, with PaulMurphy and, indeed, with the Secretary of State. We are not satisfied with some aspects of the interim rules, but they are what we have at the moment.
I am heartened by the intensity with which the Democratic Unionist Party is defending the rights of Members. I hope that that augurs well for us all. The DUP is one of the parties that do not have what I would call a very good record. You, Sir, have been witness to some of its antics. But the best way to proceed is to debate the motion that you have moved. It is not perfect, but it is imperative that the work of the Committee be completed as quickly as possible.
We could all raise a host of issues, but this business must be done.
Sinn Fein will try to make sure that the Standing Orders enable the Assembly to function properly and fairly. The rights of all Members must be respected. We are circumscribed by the interim Standing Orders, but we must get the Committee going immediately.

Mr Peter Robinson: In view of the inadequacies of the interim Standing Orders, the Committee’s composition must be dealt with promptly and seriously. Without proper Standing Orders, the Assembly’s proceedings will become more and more difficult. Confusion will abound, and that will undoubtedly increase acrimony. This is an important Committee, and we must ensure that it is as representative as possible.
I realise, MrInitial PresidingOfficer, that there are Standing Orders by which you have to abide, but their nature allows for the impact that I am suggesting, without contravention if there is a willingness on the part of Members. There may be parties that some want to exclude for political reasons. Anyone who does not want an inclusive Committee should stand up and say so.
It is clear how to get the result that is necessary. When you, Sir, and the Whips were dealing with this matter the Social Democratic and Labour Party had three places on the Committee. According to the Order Paper they now have four. Somewhere along the line the persuasiveness of the SDLP led to an increase in its representation. The additional place could go to one of the three Unionist Members who will otherwise not be represented. That is what was accepted by everyone except the SDLP, whose Members were doing business elsewhere.
The suggestion that we should have put down an amendment is absurd. We could not have done so, for the paper was not circulated before the sitting started. According to the Standing Orders, an amendment must be put down one hour before commencement. It would have been impossible to meet that requirement.
Everyone who was at the previous meeting believed that the Social Democratic and Labour Party was to have three representatives. SDLP Members may have been led to believe something different, but that was the understanding of the rest of us.
Irrespective of the issue of the three Independents, if I had known what was being proposed I would have put forward an amendment limiting the number of SDLP members to three, which is more proportionate to the party’s numerical strength in the Assembly. But we were denied that right. Indeed, we were deceived at the earlier meeting into believing that the party would have three representatives.
Mr Initial Presiding Officer, you have said that the matter of the three Independents was not raised at the meeting that you conducted. Of course not, for you did not invite them. They are the best people to represent their point of view, but they were not to be in the special club that you called together. You can hardly be surprised that their interests were not represented.
We must have a means of involving every Member in consultation. Regardless of statistics, nobody should be excluded.

Mr Peter Weir: Is a person technically a Member before taking his seat? If not, there was no Member to put down an amendment one hour before the sitting.

Lord Alderdice: If we had taken that view we could not have planned anything, and neither your party nor anybody else would have been represented. That is the reality of our imperfect situation. It is always easier to sort out legal matters where there is a corpus of law of long standing.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Mr Presiding Officer, you have indicated that there could not have been meetings before this sitting. That is entirely wrong. The meetings that you held should have been more inclusive. There was nothing to prevent you or officials from consulting.
Mr Weir is entirely correct. How could you stick to the Rules so precisely? As no one could sign the Roll before the first sitting, technically there was no Member to put down amendments. I was going to raise the matter as a point of order, but you were refusing to take any more points of order.
Further, you did not deal with MrMcCartney’s point about requiring an amendment to be tabled one hour before the sitting. The Order Paper was distributed just a short time before — in some cases, during, as is being pointed out by a Colleague.
It is very clear from what you have said that changes were made at the last minute. By nodding your head you are indicating that you agree.
We must approach this matter from first principles. Today I have heard a great deal about inclusiveness. If that is the rationale, surely it should be applied to something as fundamental as the rights of Members. The standing orders of any elected body should protect members’ rights. It cannot be proper that in this case some Members are excluded.
Several Members have said that they will make sure that these rights are protected. Under natural justice, they are entitled to an input into the Standing Orders under which they will have to operate. So it is essential that a mechanism be found to ensure that individuals are represented on this very important Committee. That would certainly be in line with the principles that have been spoken about. The rules as drafted give rights to parties, but they do not prevent individual Members from being represented.
For all these reasons, MrInitial Presiding Officer, I appeal to you and to the House to ensure that the Committee will get off on the right foot.

Mr Mark Durkan: I want to take issue with those who argue that reducing the number of Social Democratic and Labour Party membersto threewouldsolvetheproblem. Mr Initial Presiding Officer, you referred to the fact that Standing Order 15(2) restricts the membership of any Committee to 18 and gives a commitment that a party with two or more Members shall have at least one seat on each Committee.
The election could have resulted in our having several parties with only one Member each. In that event we would not have been able to include every party and take care of the Independents. If Nationalist as well as Unionist Independents had been elected — MrRobinson has said that the three individuals in question have broadly similar views — would all the Independents be grouped? We appreciate the difficulties to which you, Sir, have referred.
Standing Order 15(2) also states that, so far as is practicable, the composition of the Committees should reflect party strengths. It was suggested that reducing the Social Democratic and Labour Party’s allocation on this Committee to three would meet that requirement. Each party with more than two Assembly Members has one Committee place. The Alliance Party, which has six Assembly Members, has only one representative on the Committee. Under this proposal, every party will get an additional seat for each further six Members. If the Alliance Party gets one member for six, Sinn Fein should get three for 18, the Democratic Unionist Party three for 20, the Social Democratic and Labour Party four for 24, and the Ulster Unionist Party four for 28. It would take 30 to qualify for five. It seems to me that six is an appropriate and fair index.
If the SDLP’s representation were reduced to three, the appropriate index would be seven. The Ulster Democratic Unionist Party’s number would be reduced from three to two, and SinnFein’s from three to two. We could not seriously argue that that was a fair reflection. The Democratic Unionist Party, with 20 Members, would get only two seats, and the Independents, who are elected disparately and separately, one. There is a notion that the SDLP’s membership should be reduced to make way for three Independents, who, by the way, are not making this case themselves.
We reject the notion that the way to solve this problem is to reduce the SDLP’s membership. That would go against the principle of fair reflection. If there were such a reduction the proportionality threshold would have to be changed, and other parties would be affected.

Mr David Ford: We have spent some time demonstrating how much we need a Standing Orders Committee. Clearly, the Initial Standing Orders are totally unsatisfactory, and until something is done about them we shall continue to have debates like this.
I must take issue with MrDurkan with regard to the extra seat for the Social Democratic and Labour Party. The first proposal was that there would be three seats for the SDLP, but MrMcGrady proposed that the number be four. Mathematically either is a bit low. Also, it is at least as unsatisfactory that the Initial Presiding Officer does not have a place on the Committee as it is that three individual Independents are not represented.
The Committee’s terms of reference require it to consider the matter of Standing Orders and to report to the Assembly. As it will not take final decisions, it is entirely appropriate that it be set up at the earliest opportunity. In a sense, numbers are irrelevant since the Committee’s proposals will have to be approved by the Assembly and, as we are in shadow mode, by the Secretary of State.
At the meeting of the Whips, which I attended on behalf of my party’s former Chief Whip, the interests of the Independents were argued adequately and almost continuously by two Members. I have no doubt that that would happen in the StandingOrdersCommittee too. MrMcGrady suggested that a mechanism be devised to give the Independents observer status, with the right to speak, if not to vote.
It is clear that this Committee is necessary and that it should get under way soon.

Mr Cedric Wilson: MrMcGrady believes that the Social Democratic and Labour Party needs an additional member on this Committee. The party Whips will be in a very difficult position if they are presented with a fait accompli — a situation completely different from that which they relayed to their members.
It is regrettable that we were not informed of this late change. As MrFord has said, MrMorrow and I argued the case of the Independents. I thought that we would be returning to the matter.
Those who attended all the Whips’ meetings are being disadvantaged. The SDLP and Sinn Fein Members absented themselves, but they seem to have more clout.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Durkan seems to think that Nationalists and Republicans are badly done by. It is not so. Nationalists as a whole have 42 Assembly Members and will have seven on the Committee, whereas 48 Unionists will have only seven.

Mr John Hume: Remember the Progressive Unionist Party.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am talking about the two largest Unionist parties, which have more than one representative on the Committee.
Nationalists are always telling us that they are badly done by. Forty-two Nationalists have the same Committee representation as 48 Unionists, yet they are arguing.
How did this happen? My Whip gave me the interim report last night after the meeting. It indicated four people for the Ulster Unionist Party, three for the Social Democratic and Labour Party, three for Democratic Unionist Party, three for Sinn Fein, and then the rest. But today, without any contact with the Whips, the three has been changed to four. I want to know what secret weapon the Social Democratic and Labour Party has. How can it, without any consultation with the other parties, get an additional Committee member? This Assembly does itself no good by such activities. [Interruption]
Let Mr Maskey know that I believe in fair representation. I was picked by Members to chair the Committee that devised the Standing Orders of the first Assembly because they believed that I would be absolutely fair.
Let me tell MrFord that the Initial Presiding Officer does not need to be Chairman of this Committee. The Committee should elect its own Chairman. In any case, we do not yet have a permanent Presiding Officer.
The Secretary of State should realise that we shall not be able to operate properly if you, Sir, interpret the rules in such a way. MrWeir made a very valid point, as did my Friend MrDodds. We should proceed on the basis of a motion. Let us do what the Assembly thinks is right.

Mr John Hume: The answer to Dr Paisley’s question about the Social Democratic and Labour Party is that we can count. There are 108 Members in the Assembly, 18 of whom will be on the Committee. That works out at one Committee representative for every six Members — the most democratic arrangement.

Mr Peter Robinson: A party with fewer than six Members will have two —

Mr John Hume: Hold on a minute.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: You already subtracted three.

Mr John Hume: The three parties that are represented entirely accurately are the Alliance Party (one representative for six Members), Sinn Fein (three for 18) and the Social Democratic and Labour Party (four for 24).
Let us look at the Unionist parties’ representation. The United Kingdom Unionist Party is over-represented, as is the Progressive Unionist Party. Together, the Unionist parties are well represented. As their description implies, the three Independents did not stand together. It is right to give representation to the Progressive Unionist Party and the Women’s Coalition for they represent votes in constituencies other than their own. The Independents represent only themselves and the people in their constituencies who voted for them.

Lord Alderdice: We have come to the end of this debate, and all Members had an opportunity to express their views. To be adopted, the proposal requires simple-majority assent. If it is voted down, the Assembly will have to decide what other course to take.

Mr Peter Weir: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, did today’s letter from the Secretary of State indicate any alteration to the agenda, apart from the provision for the Adjournment debate? I think you suggested that it did. Are we not bound, apart from the addition, by the initial agenda, as set out in the Rules of Procedure detailed in Annex A, which refers to consideration of any motion? Surely that allows for another motion on this subject.

Lord Alderdice: I have dealt with that matter. Another motion would require the leave of the Assembly, and that means unanimity. Perhaps I am not being entirely objective about the matter, but I did not get an impression of unanimity. Therefore I see no option but to proceed with the vote.
All today’s votes will be on a roll call. There will be an interval of three minutes. We do not have a Division bell, but perhaps the Standing Orders Committee can look at that matter. This vote does not involve the special formula; the proposal requires 50%-plus assent.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, you say that there is no bell. Will the impending vote be announced throughout the building?

Lord Alderdice: Yes, as in the case of the last vote.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 76; Noes 27.
AYES
Gerry Adams, Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, BillyBell, Eileen Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, PJBradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, IvanDavis, Bairbre de Brún, ArthurDoherty, MarkDurkan, Reg Empey, David Ervine, SeanFarren, John Fee, David Ford, SamFoster, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, JohnGorman, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, JoeHendron, John Hume, Derek Hussey, BillyHutchinson, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, DannyKennedy, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, KieranMcCarthy, David McClarty, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, PatMcNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Jane Morrice, SeanNeeson, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, DannyO’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Ken Robinson, Brid Rogers, George Savage, JohnTaylor, John Tierney, DavidTrimble, PeterWeir, Jim Wilson.
NOES
Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, BoydDouglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, DavidHilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian R K Paisley, Ian Paisley Jnr, EdwinPoots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, PeterRobinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, DenisWatson, JimWells, Cedric Wilson, SammyWilson.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That in accordance with paragraph 15 of Initial Standing Orders the Assembly shall establish a Committee whose terms of reference, quorum and composition are set out below.
Terms of Reference:
To assist the Assembly in its consideration of Standing Orders and report to the Assembly by 14September1998.

Lord Alderdice: I shall suspend the sitting for about five minutes to give me an opportunity to meet with the Whips or the business managers of the parties and with MrDenisWatson to discuss briefly when we should break for dinner. We have two more substantive motions and a time-limited Adjournment debate, which will take about one and a half hours.
The sitting was suspended at 7.10 pm.
On resuming –

Assembly Members’ Names

Lord Alderdice: I am aware that not every Member’s name is listed as he or she wishes. In some cases it is spelt wrongly; in some cases I am pronouncing it wrongly; and in some cases I get a title wrong. Members should tell officials how they wish their names to appear on the voting list.
I apologise to anyone whom I have referred to or addressed incorrectly.

First Minister (Designate) and Deputy: Proposals

Lord Alderdice: In the absence of agreement by the Whips on someone to move the next motion, it will be moved in my name.
Motion made:
That the Assembly invites the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) to consider and, after consultation, make proposals regarding the matters referred to the Assembly under section 1(2) of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 and any other matter connected with the future business of the Assembly and report to the Assembly by 14 September 1998. — [The Initial Presiding Officer]

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Does this mean that the First and Deputy First Ministers are to consider these matters and make proposals to the Assembly, or does it mean that they can take decisions that would bind the Assembly while it is in recess until 14September?

Lord Alderdice: I hesitate to give the impression that such an explanation is the function of the Initial Presiding Officer, but the question that you raise is perfectly legitimate. My understanding is that this is a mechanism to enable the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to consider the various matters and bring them to the Assembly for decision. The deadline is 14 September, on which day, we have already agreed, another report will be put before the Assembly. I expect that the report of the First and Deputy First Minister will then be transmitted to the Secretary of State.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Section 1(2) of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 allows for the referral of any other matter connected with the future business of the Assembly. That is a very broad sweep, and I would be worried about handing power to these two gentlemen at the first meeting.
I would like to know what the other matters include.

Lord Alderdice: The invitation is to consider and make proposals. The two gentlemen are not empowered to make decisions about anything. They may make proposals about any other matter and bring them to the Assembly. The phrase "any other matter" is fairly wide, but these are only proposals, which will be brought to the Assembly for debate.
There were two reasons for proposing 14September. First, it is important, for the purposes of leave arrangements, that people should know exactly when they must be here. Secondly, some of the parties were keen to move as quickly as possible. Indeed, the week beginning 7 September was favoured by many. I had to take a decision in the absence of agreement. Also, I thought it important to have the sitting at the beginning of a week lest the debates on these reports take more than one day.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Thank you.

Mr Peter Robinson: Does "matters referred" mean matters referred in the past, or are the words used in a continuing sense? If it is the former, may we know what the matters are? And will the Secretary of State continue to refer them?

Lord Alderdice: It means the wide range of matters to be referred to the Assembly under Section 1(2). There are some matters which, under the terms of the Agreement, will not be referred to the Assembly at this time — for example, policing and justice, prisons and taxation — though they could be referred later.
Any other matters connected with the future business of the Assembly are, I believe, those that concern the Assembly’s relationships with other institutions. Obviously these will have to be agreed by the Assembly. This is a technical device to enable the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to address such matters and report back to the Assembly.
The important point from the Assembly’s perspective is that the instrument makes it clear that authority comes from the Secretary of State through the Assembly to the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), rather than from the Secretary of State to the First Minister and then to the Assembly. I believe that to be the situation.

Mr Alex Maskey: This is obviously a very important issue, and we all want to deal with it quickly. The motion refers to consultation. I assume that that means consultation with all the parties throughout the process.

Lord Alderdice: So do I, though I am willing to hear whether that is a correct interpretation of how the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) would act if this motion were passed.

Mr Peter Robinson: Perhaps Mr Trimble would like to answer that question before he goes.

Lord Alderdice: Can Mr Trimble tell us?

Rt Hon David Trimble: My apologies, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I have been busy thinking of something else for the past few minutes. What was the question?

Lord Alderdice: I appreciate that, and I am sorry to bounce this on you.
The motion asks the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to consider and, after consultation, make proposals. MrMaskey has asked if the consultation will include all parties.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The matters referred to include questions that relate to the future shape of the Administration of Northern Ireland. All Members have views on such things. Without undertaking to consult every individual, one can say that one would want to ensure that all points of view were taken into consideration. The consultation will probably extend beyond this body. Indeed, we have to consult with the existing Administration about how things are done. I imagine that the consultation will be fairly wide. However, as I said earlier, we will merely be bringing back proposals for debate here. I imagine that there will be debate when we return in September.

Lord Alderdice: Would the Deputy First Minister (Designate) like to comment?

Mr Seamus Mallon: It was proposed that there should be consultation with the parties, but several Assembly Members are not party members. In view of the substantial pressure for those people to be involved, the consultation should be all-inclusive. A wide range of elements will be involved. We are in uncharted waters, and before the end of the summer holidays there may be more consultation than many people would want.

Mr Robert McCartney: On the face of it the motion is tolerably clear as to what the First Minister (Designate) and his deputy have to consider. The next words are "and after consultation". It seems to me that, although consultation could be as wide as possible within the Assembly, the Ministers are not given carte blanche to consult Tom, Dick and Harry throughout the province. I take it that wide consultation is the widest possible consultation with all parties, including the independent Members of the Assembly. After the consultation, the Ministers will presumably make their proposals regarding the matters that are specifically referred to the Assembly under section 1(2) of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998
"and any other matter connected with the future business of the Assembly."
But it must be consultation within the Assembly about matters that have actually been referred under section 1(2) and such other matters as are within the confines of the Assembly’s business.

Lord Alderdice: I want to remind Members of the practice concerning mobile telephones, tape recorders, pagers and the like.
We are beginning to stray a little from proper procedure because I do not have a list of Members for the debate. We have slid from points of order. I am quite happy for us to move into a debate if that is necessary.

Mr Gerry Adams: Bhuel, níl mé ach ag cur ceiste, an bhfuil cead agam an cheist a chur nó rún a chur? I am just asking whether it is in order to propose that the Question be put? I am not formally proposing but asking if it is in order to do so?

Lord Alderdice: It probably is in order, and I get a sense that such a course might be very acceptable. I will therefore now put the Question. I indicated that today, to avoid confusion or uncertainty, I would arrange for all votes to be by roll-call.

Sir Reg Empey: I have no difficulty with the motion, but I do not think that you can put the Question when, as you yourself said, we have not had a debate.

Lord Alderdice: The problem is that there is not a single name on my list, although I asked the Whips for names. That is why I thought it reasonable to go to the vote.

Mr Robert McCartney: There seems to be consensus that this can be dealt with.

Lord Alderdice: The vote will be taken in three minutes.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. Is it necessary for the vote to be recorded?

Lord Alderdice: At the beginning I gave an undertaking that today all votes would be recorded. I accept that it is a little tedious, but an undertaking is an undertaking.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 72; Noes 27.
AYES
Gerry Adams, Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, BillyBell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Seamus Close, FredCobain, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, IvanDavis, Bairbre de Brún, ArthurDoherty, MarkDurkan, Reg Empey, DavidErvine, SeanFarren, John Fee, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, John Gorman, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Hume, DerekHussey, Billy Hutchinson, Gerry Kelly, JohnKelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, PatriciaLewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, David McClarty, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, MickMurphy, Jane Morrice, Mary Nelis, DermotNesbitt, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Ken Robinson, Brid Rodgers, George Savage, JohnTaylor, John Tierney, DavidTrimble, PeterWeir, Jim Wilson.
NOES
Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, BoydDouglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, DavidHilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian R K Paisley, Ian Paisley Jnr, EdwinPoots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, SammyWilson.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Assembly invites the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) to consider and, after consultation, make proposals regarding the matters referred to the Assembly under section 1(2) of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 and any other matter connected with the future business of the Assembly and report to the Assembly by 14 September 1998.

Assembly: Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer

Motion made:
That a Committee be established in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Initial Standing Orders. — [The Initial Presiding Officer]

Lord Alderdice: This is a House Committee to deal with practical arrangements, including facilities for Members and business arrangements. It is different from the other Committees in that it will be chaired by the Initial Presiding Officer, with the Deputy Initial Presiding Officer also present, and that it will have not fewer than eight and not more than 16 members, appointed by the Initial Presiding Officer. The arrangements are not defined in quite the same way as for the Standing Orders Committee. Arguably this is not entirely satisfactory, but it is what we have been handed.
As it appears that I shall be operating as Initial Presiding Officer until at least the next sitting of the Assembly, I give an undertaking that I will try to construct the Committee as far as possible on the basis that has been established for the other Committee.
Given that that is not entirely without problems, there will have to be some negotiating. Perhaps it would be sensible to set up a skeleton Committee and build on it rather than have something that is grossly unsatisfactory from the start. We might begin with one member from each party, plus at least one each for the larger parties, and increase the representation later. Otherwise we could not use the figures that were agreed for the Standing Orders Committee.
I appreciate that this will require a degree of trust, but I can see no other satisfactory course under the interim Standing Orders that we have been given. It is clear from the numbers that we cannot operate this Committee in the same way as the Standing Orders Committee — and we were not very happy even about the latter. However, we shall do the best we can. I give an undertaking that the Committee will not operate on the basis of votes. It seems to me that we must struggle to agree on working arrangements.
As I moved the motion, I shall try to respond to any questions.

Mr Francie Molloy: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I have pleasure in agreeing with what you advocate. Having one member from each party, as on previous occasions, would result in a working Committee that could enable the Assembly to get on with its day-to-day business. The Committee will have to be set up fairly quickly as there is much to be done. We will co-operate with you when you make your proposals.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, you said that you would have one member from every party. Do you intend to have one of the Independents also?

Lord Alderdice: Yes, there will have to be some such arrangement. To find the best course, I shall discuss the matter with all three Independents. I shall also have consultations with the Chief Whips.

Mr Peter Robinson: When will the Committee meet? I take it that, given the very cramped conditions here, you are eager that we take our rightful place in Parliament Buildings.

Lord Alderdice: Decisions about location are entirely for the Secretary of State. She has indicated that some practical arrangements are proceeding apace, but I cannot give more concrete information. I hope I am correct in assuming that any instructions from the Secretary of State will be communicated rapidly to this Committee. Perhaps within the next few days there will be some indication about the Assembly’s home.
If no other Members wish to speak, I shall put the Question.

Mr Peter Robinson: Is there any disagreement?

A Member: There is a look of shock on your face, MrInitial Presiding Officer.

Lord Alderdice: Not least because this unanimity is your doing. I am sorry: that was unkind and uncalled for.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That a Committee be established in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Initial Standing Orders.
Motion made:
That this Assembly do now adjourn. — [The Initial Presiding Officer]

Orange Institution Parade (Drumcree)

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am very glad that it has been possible to arrange this Adjournment debate, which gives us an opportunity to deal with matters that are important to the people of Northern Ireland.
I want to focus on what I think most people regard as a major problem that we need to resolve urgently: the sense of crisis that surrounds the annual Drumcree Parish Church service attended by the Portadown District of the Orange Order, which is scheduled for Sunday and which has been — wrongly, in my view — made subject to restrictions by the Parades Commission.
The Agreement that we are here to try to implement contains many references to questions of culture and identity — the ethos of the communities — and of rights. It is a serious mistake for the Parades Commission to be engaged in what I regard as a massive assault on the civil rights of an important section of the community. This runs counter to their ethos, heritage and culture.
It is a well-known fact that the Orange service at Drumcree was first held in 1807. Indeed, it may have started a year or two earlier. Within a decade or so of the creation of the order the then rector of Drumcree parish invited Portadown Orangemen to his church.
At that time this was the parish church for Portadown. St Mark’s in the middle of the town, was established later. The two parish churches in the area at that time were Drumcree and Seagoe. Since then the Orangemen of Drumcree district have gone each July to both.
Over the years there has been some variation in the route from the town centre to Drumcree, but either the outward or the return march — indeed, sometimes both — has been along the Garvaghy Road, and until comparatively recently the route has been entirely uncontroversial. These are well-known facts that should not need to be restated.
In proceeding along the Garvaghy Road the Orangemen are not invading someone else’s territory. They are not going through housing estates but are walking on a main road. It is a very broad carriageway which is the most direct route from the church to the town centre. The habit of the Orangemen has been to take the long way out and the short way home — entirely reasonable.
This is a parade to a church service — not an ordinary Orange walk. There are no banners — simply one Union flag and the bannerettes of the district and of the Portadown ex-servicemen’s lodge. The music is provided only by accordion bands, whose members are predominantly female. It is a sober and restrained exercise which is very much a part of the culture and tradition of the order. Those who have a direct connection with it are the religious elements of the organisation and other people attending divine service.
The Garvaghy Road parade ought not to be a matter of controversy. In any other society such an event would be regarded as something perfectly normal to which no reasonable person could take exception.
Unfortunately in recent years the opposition has been not just organised but accompanied by the threat of violence and, indeed, actual force. The highway has been blocked. We are dealing here with people trying to deny others their legitimate rights. The only way to maintain the rule of law is to remove the lawbreakers who are blocking the highway. Citizens must be enabled to exercise their rights in a reasonable manner.
Unfortunately, owing to the perversion of thought that has affected the Parades Commission and too many other people, the authorities, instead of responding to the breach of the rule of law in the only sensible and reasonable way, decided to punish the innocent. Such a decision was first taken in 1995, and the same thing happened on two other occasions. Responding in this way leads to the conclusion that the threat of force pays, and threat becomes a numbers game. Thus we have the danger of riots or disturbances.
What is happening with regard to the Garvaghy Road and other places leads members of the Orange Order and many other reasonable people to believe that they are faced with a concerted campaign to deny them reasonable expression of their rights. But recently Orangemen and others have said "This is enough. Here we must draw the line."
When people become entrenched, there is a danger that things will get out of hand, as was shown in 1995 and 1996. In 1997 there was a better, though not trouble-free, outcome. I hoped that even the Parades Commission was capable of coming to the simple conclusion that what happened in 1997 was preferable to the events of 1996. Instead, we have been pitched into a dangerous situation where confrontation looms.
I sincerely hope that confrontation can be avoided. If that is to be the case, those who are threatening, and who have in the recent past threatened, to block the Garvaghy Road must allow a responsible, reasonable, peaceful procession. Let them protest, but peacefully. Actually it would be better for them to do whatever people usually do between 12.30 pm and 1.00 pm on a Sunday. There is no reason for anyone to feel offended or to resort to violence.
In the hope of such an outcome, I addressed an open communication to those elements on the Garvaghy Road who, in my view, are causing the problem. I said that they should do their bit to deliver the peace that society wants, rather than bring about confrontation.
They should realise that in the summer of 1997 many dangers to the community were averted because the Orange Order voluntarily re-routed some parades to defuse tension. The Institution believes that, having behaved in a very reasonable, generous and responsible way, it has been let down by the Government. The failure of other elements in society to respond has also caused bitterness.
It would be entirely appropriate for Nationalists and anyone else who has influence on the Garvaghy Road to urge the residents to make a generous response to the Institution’s behaviour last year. A similar spirit of generosity could prevent conflict.
I hope that we will manage to resolve these matters. I hope that, whatever happens, people will behave peacefully at all times. But, above all, I hope that we can put an end to this entire issue. It seems to me that the events of recent years are a symptom of the conflict in society as a whole.
Those who have waged what they call a war against the rest of society over the last 25 to 30 years need to make it clear the war is over and that the fomenting of trouble as a means of prosecuting the conflict will be abandoned. I hope that the conflict between elements of the community in Portadown, the war that some people — some people — on the Garvaghy Road are waging against the rest of the town, will also end.
It is symbolic that those elements on the Garvaghy Road elected as their spokesman a person who has a terrorist conviction in connection with the bombing of the British Legion hall in Portadown. That is an indication of the way in which they were waging a war against the rest of the community there. I hope they will realise that it is appropriate to stop. Then we can tackle the problems in the town, particularly with regard to community relations, which have deteriorated seriously as a result of the conflict in recent years. That is what the focus should be on. If there is to be an improvement those who have prosecuted this conflict must call it off.
We must have a peaceful resolution which recognises the rights of Portadown Orangemen to walk home from church by the most direct route. I hope that the threatened conflict will be averted, for I have the gravest forebodings about what will happen in Northern Ireland otherwise.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Parading in Northern Ireland has a long history of conflict. Traditionally the Loyal Orders have been allowed — indeed, expected — to parade in all areas, whether Nationalist or Unionist and whether town centres or otherwise, whereas Nationalist parades have always been confined to Nationalist areas. The inequality is the reason for the conflict. But Nationalists are no longer prepared to accept unequal treatment, and the situation in Portadown could be seen as the blueprint.
Let me deal very briefly with the background to the conflict. For years the Loyal Orders paraded through the Tunnel/Obins Street area — Obins Street, which is very narrow, is 99% Nationalist — four times on the Twelfth and four times on the Thirteenth, and there was one parade on the Garvaghy Road (the church parade). Nationalists bitterly resented the fact that on the evening before the Twelfth they had to move their cars from outside their own doors into side streets. For the whole of the morning of the Twelfth and most of the rest of that day they were confined in the side streets, with a huge police presence to ensure that the Loyal Orders’ parades could go through without let or hindrance. [Interruption]
I thought that the best way to deal with the situation would be to give the Nationalist community in Portadown the same rights — to allow Nationalists to finish what was a circular route from Garvaghy to the Tunnel and then proceed along Park Road. Permission was granted, but on the morning of StPatrick’s Day in 1984 the participants were stopped by groups of people who gathered in the centre of the road with cudgels and stones. These people said that the parade would be blocked as there were Unionists living in the Park Road area.
On that day the police told StPatrick’s Band — an innocuous band not displaying a Tricolour or other emblem of any description, apart from a banner depicting StPatrick — that it could not go through. They said "We cannot put you through, for there will be a breach of the peace." The threat of violence was used to prevent Nationalists from doing in that area what the Loyal Orders had been doing for years in Nationalist areas.

Mr Jim Shannon: Will the Member give way?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I will not give way.
It was very clear that in Portadown there was one law for one section of the community and another law for the other. As that was intolerable the Loyal Order parades through the Tunnel area were stopped — and rightly so. [Interruption]
Let me correct the assertion that the number of Loyalist parades in Portadown has been reduced to one. There is a significant number of other Loyal Order marches, but they do not seem to count. We are told all the time that there used to be 10 parades and now there is one. Ten went through the very small Nationalist enclave. The others continue to go through the rest of Portadown. The fact that they do not seem to count sends a clear message to the Nationalist people. [Interruption]
What is the purpose of insisting on going through a Nationalist area when there is a perfectly viable alternative? For instance, why return from church by the Garvaghy Road when the outward route could be used? Why is there no sense of proportion? Nobody is preventing the Loyal Orders from returning from church. They are simply being asked to go back the way they came or to talk to the people who live in that small Nationalist area. They should recognise that this is a conflict of rights — the right of freedom of assembly and the right of a community to live in peace.
And it is not just a matter of the 10-minute march; there is the evening before, as well as the Sunday morning.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Why is there violence?

Ms Brid Rodgers: There has been no threat of violence. There were threats of violence in 1996, but they did not come from the Nationalist community. There were similar threats in 1997, but they did not come from the Nationalist community, as was confirmed by the Chief Constable, who said that they amounted to subversion of the state.
The point is made that the Garvaghy Road is a public highway. In that case, how is it that Nationalists are not free to go into the centre of Portadown? A young man called RobertHamill was kicked to death in the centre of the town on his way home from an innocent leisure activity. A young man called AdrianLamph, who was going about his work, was shot dead because he was in a part of the town that is not thought of as Nationalist.
For members of the Nationalist community the Garvaghy Road is the centre of Portadown. It is the only place where they can socialise and are not afraid to go out of their own doors. It is very much a Nationalist area.
The only way in which this conflict of rights can be resolved is through dialogue. Rights are not absolute; one must respect the rights of others. In the last two years people have insisted on imposing a march on a small Nationalist part of Portadown. The wishes and views of residents have been ignored.
The Parades Commission has made a determination. In my view, it is the correct determination, but it was not necessary, for dialogue, I am quite certain, could have led to accommodation. The people who live in the Nationalist Garvaghy Road area want nothing more and nothing less than to be treated with the same respect as the rest of the community. They want their rights to be recognised and respected. They want dialogue with the Loyal Orders and with the Unionist community so that they can explain how they feel and find out how others feel. They want an accommodation, but they cannot compromise with people who simply will not listen to them.
The ideal way to resolve any conflict is through dialogue. I wish we could have the same spirit in Portadown as we had in the talks in Castle Buildings, where people with very different views and very strong feelings entered into dialogue. An accommodation was reached without sacrifice of principle or change in fundamental identity on either side. [Interruption]
That could have been the template for Portadown: people coming together, learning to build understanding, creating a new situation and reaching an accommodation. But it did not happen, and the Parades Commission could only apply its own guidelines in making its determination. About 10 days ago the Chief Constable made it clear that he would implement whatever decision was reached.
We are now in a situation with very serious implications, not just for the communities in Portadown but for the whole of Northern Ireland. I therefore appeal — even at this late stage — to those people in Portadown who refuse to recognise that this is a conflict of two rights, whose resolution requires dialogue, to accept that people’s views must be respected and that understanding must be built.
Nothing is impossible between people of goodwill, and I know that the Nationalist community in Portadown — I have just had a resounding endorsement from them — want an accommodation. But it must be an accommodation which gives them rights equal to those of the Loyalist and Unionist community. At this late stage I appeal for dialogue.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am glad that weare having this debate, for the Assembly is the place to discuss such matters. It was completely wrong for some parties to make the case through the press that Drumcree is not a matter for this forum. The Assembly will be useless if it does not deal head-on with matters of conflict.
MsRodgers will not convince anybody that the people she has been defending tonight never engaged in violence. Who attacked the half dozen or so junior Orangemen? We are told that Roman Catholics or Nationalists or Republicans cannot go into Portadown. In fact, they can go in and blow it to pieces.
Let us get the facts. This is not an Orange service; it is a parish church service to which Orangemen are invited. There are distinctly Orange services for which the use ofa church is requested and at which an Orange chaplain preaches. The Drumcree arrangement has been in force for nearly 200 years.
The Agreement refers to
"rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity".
That includes the right to freedom and expression of religion. These Orangemen have expressed their religious beliefs. They have gone to and returned from that church. MrAdams, who is a Member of the Assembly, told us that this matter had been worked on for a very long time and that people would not let go. He told us that we would have more of what we have had. This is a well-orchestrated Republican attack upon a Protestant community expressing their religious convictions and going to their place of worship.
Ms Rodgers’s talk about Nationalists not being allowed to walk in Protestant areas is nonsense. If she knew anything about North Antrim or County Londonderry she would know that Hibernian parades go through Protestant areas, as they have for a very long time. Nothing is said because these are traditional parades. What people have been doing for many years should be permitted to continue.
Southern Irish politicians started to interfere in Ulster’s affairs by attacking the Public Order Act because of the safeguards it provided for traditional parades. The provisions were removed, and almost every Unionist Member of Parliament who made a protest was taken to court and given a prison sentence. We served the sentences to expose legislation whose purpose was to destroy religious freedom.
Anybody who does not want to see people coming down from the church service does not have to be there. Those who object block the road, but the authorities treat the Orangemen as lawbreakers. That lies at the heart of this conflict. MrMcKenna, who is, I understand, a convicted terrorist, tells us that until Orangemen talk to him they will not be permitted to walk along the Queen’s highway.
I have heard it said over and over again in the media that the Orangemen want to walk through a Roman Catholic housing estate. Ms Rodgers knows very well that this is a main road into a Protestant town. Anyone listening to her would think that Portadown was not a Protestant town, that the Nationalists had a right to take it over. Tonight the Orangemen and the Protestant people of Northern Ireland have been maligned. It has been said that Orangemen want to walk through Roman Catholic housing estates. The parade in question comes down a main road into the Protestant capital of County Armagh — which is what Portadown is.
As for the Parades Commission, I asked many young people if they knew the expression "Croppies lie down." None of them did. It occurs in ‘The Oul’ Orange Flute’, but today not many people know the words of that song. The Parades Commission lies when it says that Portadown has a "Croppies lie down" environment.
The Protestants of Portadown are decent people who live well with their Roman Catholic neighbours. Everybody knows that. Let MsRodgers tell us who regularly attacks the Protestants at the bottom of the Garvaghy Road. Are the attackers some strangers from darkest Africa? No.
The people of this country will never tolerate a situation in which they cannot exercise their rights without going to a convicted terrorist and asking if they may talk with him. The law should treat us all equally. Several Members present, including MrAdams, had open-air gospel meetings banned by the police to enable parades to take place in the centre of Belfast. Followers of the Member desecrated the statue of QueenVictoria, hung tricolours all around the place, and wanted to put a fake bomb on the dome of the city hall. And we are supposed to give in to all this.
The time has come to accept that people should be allowed to proceed to and from their church as they have done for 200 years.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh. Tá áthas orm a bheith anseo agus a labhairt do na daoine anseo ar son Sinn Féin. I am making this submission on behalf of Sinn Fein.
Like DavidTrimble, who, unfortunately, is not here, I represent Upper Bann. I appeal to Mr Trimble as MP and an Assembly Member for the area, as well as a leading Orangeman associated with the march at Drumcree. But in particular I appeal to him as the First Minister (Designate) of the North of Ireland. He represents all the people of the North, and I ask him to act speedily to defuse the situation this weekend.
The majority of people on this island voted in the referenda for accommodation and consensus as a way of solving our many problems. Accommodation and consensus can be reached only by dialogue. As an advocate of the Agreement MrTrimble has a duty to meet the residents of the GarvaghyRoad.
I call on the First Minister (Designate) to encourage the Orange Order to voluntarily re-route its parade. There is an alternative. The residents of the Garvaghy Road have been subjected to violence and intimidation. Their community is under siege. They are prevented from going about their lawful business. Much has been made of the fact that the Orange parade is from a church service. Let it be remembered that residents of the Garvaghy Road were prevented from going to their church service last year because of the Orange parade.

Mr Wilson Clyde: Will the Member give way?

Dr Dara O'Hagan: No.
The Good Friday Agreement affirms the right to freedom from sectarian harassment. That should include the residents of the Garvaghy Road. I was glad to hear MrTrimble and DrPaisley refer to issues such as the rule of law. MrTrimble mentioned the removal of blockages that prevent people from going about their business. I agree totally with what he said. The Orange Order and the Unionist leadership need to make it clear that this weekend there will be no blockades, that people throughout this state will have freedom of movement.
Incidentally, it was reported in the media today that the picket at Harryville Catholic Church is to begin again this weekend. If so, it is a disgrace.
Much has been made of the fact that the Portadown Orangemen will be going to a church service at Drumcree. It should be remembered that the founder of the Christian church to which so many people here pledge allegiance said that you should love not only your neighbour but also your enemy. Surely people who go to church services should at least talk to their neighbours. GerryAdams has put it on public record that he is prepared to go anywhere at any time to meet anyone for the purpose of ensuring that the marching months will be quiet and peaceful. He has also said that the residents of the Garvaghy Road and other areas, such as the Ormeau Road, should not be put under any pressure.
Finally, on behalf of Sinn Fein, I call on all citizens in the Six Counties to be calm and to exercise restraint this weekend and in the days and months ahead.
Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Gerry Adams: I was not going to intervene, for I know that women Members are quite capable of stating their positions. However, when some male Members hear women talking sense they behave like ill-mannered pups. You, MrInitial Presiding Officer, should rule on this. I thought MsRodgers was treated disgracefully by some Members. [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: It is important that we treat each other with the greatest respect. However, this is a political forum, and from time to time there will be some toing and froing. But it would be particularly invidious if female Members were treated less well than their male counterparts. Of course, the same applies in reverse, but at present the risk seems very small.

Mr David Ford: We are ending today’s business with a rather sad debate which reflects the tension outside the Chamber — rather sad because it comes at the end of a day on which we have made considerable progress with the task that we were set. It is desirable that difficulties over parades should be settled through local accommodation.
In recent years there has not been local agreement, which is why we have the Parades Commission to impose decisions. What else could we expect?
In some places the situation is different from that at Drumcree, where there appears to be no genuine attempt at negotiation. The megaphone diplomacy that is being indulged in by some Members following the decision by the Parades Commission is no substitute.
Those sections of the Orange Order and the other Loyal Orders that have sought accommodation, as well as those who have assisted through civil or church positions, deserve credit. For instance, a band parade in Crumlin, which is in my constituency, was cancelled in order to lower tension. I welcome that genuine demonstration of good faith. And genuine efforts are being made to find a solution to difficulties over the 13 July parade. It is regrettable that just after the Crumlin parade had been called off, others attempted to whip up hysteria by distributing leaflets alleging that there would be curfews and by nailing tricolours to telegraph poles on the main street.
By the same token, the suggestion that the picket of Our Lady’s Church in Harryville should be resumed is utterly reprehensible. There never was any connection between Dunloy and Harryville. There never was any attempt to prevent ordinary worshippers from proceeding to Dunloy Presbyterian Church. There should never have been a Harryville picket, and the suggestion that it should be resumed because of events not 15 miles away but 40 miles away is utterly disgusting.
The Orange Order has shown in some areas that it is prepared to be positive and to seek an accommodation, and it deserves credit for that. Residents’ groups in some areas have made similar efforts.
Today some people sought to reach an accommodation in this Chamber. We all have a responsibility to do the same outside. Backbiting and recrimination such as we have seen during the last half hour should not be encouraged.

Mr Robert McCartney: I take the view that all parades that are essentially lawful and not in themselves provocative should be allowed to proceed. That applies to Orange parades in areas with a preponderance of Nationalists and to Ancient Order of Hibernians parades in areas which are predominantly Protestant.
The right of public process, which is enshrined in every Western democracy and is embedded in many Constitutions, is based upon the principle that, provided that a parade is itself lawful, is for a lawful purpose and is not conducted in a provocative way likely to cause difficulty or to insult people of a different religion or race, it should be allowed to proceed. Unfortunately, in the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order of 1987 the Government went against that concept and introduced the principle that if a parade were likely to cause significant public disorder it could be banned.
This change in the law provided a protestors’ charter: if you can engage, excite and agitate a number of protestors sufficiently large to give rise to a substantial risk of public disorder between them and people parading lawfully the authorities have to decide whether that risk is greater or smaller than the risk of disorder as a result of the parade’s being banned. In making this fundamental change to a principle so well established in every Constitution the Government of the day made a basic error which has given rise to much of the difficulty in which we now find ourselves.
It was not very long before those engaged in civil disturbance and those engaged in active terrorism — bombing, murder, mayhem, pillage — realised that this had the potential to increase civil disturbance. Indeed, when it became apparent that it might be necessary, for political purposes, for certain violent Republican elements to cease their overt terrorism — bombing and shooting — while there was what was called a complete cessation of military activities against the security forces, they opened a second front, which could be employed to create civil agitation and to keep the two communities at each other’s throats. So much for the formal cease-fire that was said to be in operation.
It was against that background that MrAdams stated on Telefis Eireann that the disturbances on the Garvaghy Road, in Derry and on the lower Ormeau Road were not just spontaneous expressions of oppression by the people in those areas. MrAdams told the viewers that those disturbances were the result of years of work by Sinn Fein activists, and it is not surprising that post-1994, when the IRA and Sinn Fein entered into some kind of formal cease-fire, there was a vast increase in the amount of civil disturbance and inter-communal hatred. It was in 1994, 1995 and 1996 that Republican Sinn Fein upped the ante in all these areas of its second front.
The central figure in each area of conflict — one thinks of the gentleman on the Garvaghy Road and of Mr Rice in the lower Ormeau — has a well-documented record of terrorist activity. Indeed, the gentleman in Portadown, as the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party has pointed out, has a record of involvement in blowing up the British Legion hall. So what we are seeing is not, as Ms Rodgers would have us believe, a spontaneous revolt by the people of the Garvaghy Road against oppressors.
I am not an Orangeman, but some of the most decent men I have ever met are members of the Loyal Order. When I see gentlemen — most of them elderly — parading down that road for 15 minutes I find it very difficult to believe that they are going to turn into rabid Protestant bigots attacking the residents.
If members of the Parades Commission had bothered on any other Sunday of the year to go to the Garvaghy Road at the time of the homeward parade they might have found it difficult to come across any pedestrians at all. Many of the houses are set back from the road, with only the gable walls facing it. Ms Rodgers said that people were cooped up in their homes from the night before the parade. But that is because it is now established practice that violent people bring out their stores of stones, petrol bombs and all sorts of other equipment.
No one has told us why a couple of dozen juveniles — boys up to the age of 12 — were violently attacked. We have not been told why on the Springfield Road, a week past on Saturday, there were scenes of violent protest about a parade which could not be seen. The march was taking place more than half a mile away, and the accompanying music could barely be heard.
We have entered a phase in which people are demonstrating triumphalism of the worst kind. Witness the Garvaghy Road. People are being forced to seek the permission of convicted ex-terrorists to do what they have been doing peacefully for many years.
Were it not for MrAdams’s activists, a solution to the problem between those who reside on the Garvaghy Road and the Orangemen could have been found long ago. Indeed, there are people in the lower Ormeau, like MrMcKenna, who have circulated many residents and found that a large number of them would have no objection to a parade provided that it was lawful, lawfully conducted and not provocative and that it did not cause insult or indignity for those living in the area.
People should not have to suffer insults or indignity. They should not be subjected to provocative music that they find offensive. But, as one who believes in a pluralist and constitutional state, I say that they have absolutely no right to claim that an area they regard as theirs should be prohibited to others conducting themselves in a lawful and non-provocative way.
That is the essence of pluralism, and it is what violent Republicanism is determined to deny the Orangemen in the case of the Garvaghy Road. The Parades Commission’s decision could easily have been foreseen. It was based on weakness and on unwillingness to uphold the rule of law. Sinn Fein’s presence in this building and its goodwill are necessary for the resolution of conflict between Sinn Fein/IRA and the British state. The purpose is not to protect us but to protect the city of London.

Mr David Ervine: This is undoubtedly a difficult subject, and I would like to address many of my comments to Sinn Fein. What they have heard from the leaders of Unionism — much as they may dislike those people — is an extremely accurate description of the feelings in the Unionist community, and it would be ridiculous for me to add to or take away from it.
I thought that the Agreement was about creating peaceful coexistence. Surely that is why we are here. Sinn Fein would say that they have had a long, hard struggle to get to here, and there are theoristswho created the micro to match the macro. The micro was the parades issue— the search forlegitimacy — but what was created was a no-losesituation from a Unionist perspective. Letmegivenames: MrBreandan MacCionnaith, MrDominicMacNiallais and MrGerard Rice, all of whom have convictions for Republican violence. Sinn Fein knew exactly what the reaction of the Unionist community would be. They find strategies very easy. They can often tell exactly what our reaction will be.
The Unionist community refused to talk, and that copper-fastened the attitude of the ordinary Catholic, whom Sinn Fein were able to manipulate by saying "We told you these people would never give us a place in the sun." That is the game that was being played.
Is the micro to match the macro? The macro is the negotiation process which at an earlier stage Sinn Fein could not enter, though they now find themselves here trying to manage an extremely difficult situation.
We have not provided conflict resolution. This is a process of conflict transformation — transformation from violence to politics — about which, as has been pointed out several times today, I know a fair bit. Indeed, there are other such people on this side of the Chamber and maybe, as was suggested earlier, a few who were never captured. The important thing is that there are people struggling — genuinely struggling — to create a situation which is better for our children and our children’s children.
Let us assume that I am wrong, that I can be kind to Sinn Féin by accepting that all of this is merely a perception. I do not believe that, having looked at the bigger picture, they are showing any commitment to defusing the situation. The larger picture is undoubtedly what we need to have in front of us. If we allow destabilisation to occur, it will be much more difficult to cope in the months ahead.
I therefore encourage Sinn Fein, the Social Democratic and Labour Party and whatever elements of Unionism can manage to do it to enter dialogue, to explain to people that the bigger picture is vitally important. Sinn Fein may ask "Would the Orangemen not understand the bigger picture?" Alas the perception again is of destabilisation. It did not begin where MrMcCartney suggested; it began with MrAdams talking about angry voices and marching feet and a long, hot summer.
We have had difficulties over parades before. In 1963, when I was only 10years old, I got clouted heavily when the Stormont Government re-routed a parade. Did we forget that? The issue has been around for a long time. From a Unionist perspective — like it or loathe it — I have to say that you may believe in this Agreement and think that it can achieve reasonable co-existence (whether or not people are right-wingers or fools who say "Step ye from among them and touch not the unclean") but you must accept that it cannot work without us.
It is very clear from the election of a FirstMinister and a Deputy FirstMinister that we recognise the interdependence of the two traditions. I appeal to Sinn Fein to ask people to make what they might perceive to be a sacrifice so that we can concentrate on the bigger picture. The people of Portadown feel pain with regard to MrMacCionnaith. He may be out of control, and Sinn Fein, in putting such people up to argue the toss about legitimacy, may well have created little monsters.
Let someone show me that that perception is wrong. I need to be able to go to my very volatile community, especially when it feels that there is an attempt to subjugate its culture and endanger peaceful coexistence. Subjugation can play no part. Indeed, in a divided society — a zero-sum society, a "them and us" society — subjugation must not play any part, for that would create an explosive situation, which would put us in deep trouble.
Some Members have made it much easier for me to directly engage MrAdams. I used to get into trouble for it, but the fact that most other Members have directly engaged him has broken ground that I can now walk on. I ask MrAdams to take serious cognisance of the fears and difficulties of the Unionist community. Unionists feel that they are being subjugated and destabilised. Some efforts ought to be made to get us through next week for the sake of our children and our children’s children. We must look at the big picture.

Ms Jane Morrice: This debate, in which such a wide variety of views have been expressed, has been very valuable. The Women’s Coalition, like every other party, accepts the right to march, but, as other Members have said, rights must be exercised responsibly. We must take account of how such expression impacts on others. That is the essence of this issue.
The Women’s Coalition has always said that where two sets of rights are in conflict the only appropriate course is dialogue with a view to reaching an accommodation. That is what has been happening in this debate. We will continue to do all we can to promote dialogue. In the absence of an accommodation it is unfortunately necessary for an outside body to adjudicate. We call on everyone to abide by the adjudication of the Parades Commission. It is absolutely unacceptable for any group to use the threat of civil unrest to get its own way.
It is also very important to put this parade in context: we are not talking about preventing Orangemen from marching or about undermining their identity. Furthermore, the Orangemen will not be prevented from reaching their service. There will be more than 700 marches this year. The Parades Commission has had to adjudicate on only seven of these and has not re-routed in every case. We do not want to see another summer in which people have to flee the country, with planes leaving Belfast full, and planes returning empty. This is the holiday season when we should be attracting tourists. It is entirely wrong to hold NorthernIreland to ransom.
We understand that there are difficulties and challenges on both sides, but we believe that it is unacceptable for any group to impede the democraticprocess, particularly the Agreement, which was endorsed by the vast majority and which enshrines the principle of consent.
We urge all those in positions of influence to use their influence constructively to secure the political leadership needed to reach an accommodation on this crucial issue. For its part, the Women’s Coalition will continue to do whatever it can to promote dialogue and to support positive leadership.

Mr Denis Watson: As one who did not take part in the talks process, I have a question for all those Members who have been involved for the last two years. How often during that period did they consider the parades issue? Whether they like it or not, it is an integral part of life in Northern Ireland. They need not, like Pilate, wash their hands.
This is a very important occasion, for the Assembly brings renewed hope of a return to democracy. Accommodation, not segregation, is the way forward if we are to have permanent peace and stability. I agree with MrTrimble’s comments about the background to the Portadown parades. Orangemen go to Drumcree church to commemorate the Battle of the Somme — whose eighty-second anniversary we celebrate today — in which people from all communities throughout these islands gave their lives for our liberty.
I am one of those who spent most of last year going round these islands and further afield trying to resolve the situation in Portadown, so I speak with some authority. It is very disappointing that the discredited Government quango reversed the decision of last year. The officers and brethren of Portadown district return from Drumcree church peacefully and in a dignified manner along the Garvaghy Road. Let me quote the ‘Daily Mail’ of 7July:
"Down the middle of the road, silently and without looking left or right, walked the Orangemen of Portadown District. They neither swaggered nor strutted. From behind the Land Rovers, police and soldiers lining the road came screams of ‘Orange Bastards!’. from men, women and small children."
And here is an extract from the ‘Daily Express’ of 8 July:
"The Drumcree Orangemen were right to march down the Garvaghy Road, and cannot be blamed for the malicious violence and well planned vandalism which followed their modest and peaceful parade."
I am one of those who last year sent a letter to the residents of the road. It was interesting to receive many replies indicating that people were happy to allow the brethren to march. That should not be forgotten. If any Member wants to see copies I will be more than happy to provide them.

Mrs Iris Robinson: Minus the addresses.

Mr Denis Watson: Yes, minus the addresses.
When the go-ahead was given, what happened? Republicans launched a well-planned, well-orchestrated orgy of destruction, violence and hatred, not only along the route of the parade but throughout the province. The Orange brethren paraded silently and with great dignity. It is interesting that people had to leave their Sunday lunch. On any other Sunday at the same time there are very few people about. The court cases revealed that people had to travel a fair distance to be offended.
Churchill Park contains approximately 200houses, only five of which face the GarvaghyRoad; in the Beeches estate there are about 100 houses, only five of which face the road; GarvaghyPark contains approximately 100 houses, only 10 of which face the road; Ballyoran Park has about 500 houses, of which only 46 face the Garvaghy or Drumcree Road.
Why has this happened? It started in 1972, on 12 July, when a brother Orangeman was shot dead on the road. Since then there has been intimidation and pillage. I know of a Protestant gentleman who used to take Catholic children to school every morning. One evening he was told "We have made alternative arrangements for tomorrow." The following morning, when he switched on the ignition, the car blew up, and he was killed. But these things are forgotten. And now there are at least 50 Irish tricolours right down towards the Protestant part of the road.
Last year a person who is now a Member of the Assembly said "Ask any activist in the North ‘Did Drumcree happen by accident?’ and he will say ‘No.’." The opposition to Orange parades has clearly been manipulated by Sinn Fein/IRA — through intimidation, I suggest. It is clear that the Republican community is intolerant of all things British and will continue to strive for cultural apartheid. That did not work in South Africa, and it will not work here.
Here is what a resident wrote to the ‘Portadown Times’ on 12 July last:
"When I recall the violence of the past few years I ask myself what has been achieved? Has our community in the GarvaghyRoad gained anything? Have we shown people of a different faith that we wish them to continue living in our community without fear?"
This is the kind of response we have been getting from people on the road. What has changed since 6July last year? The Orange Institution made a magnanimous gesture, wrong-footing Sinn Fein/IRA, on 10July when it re-routed four parades. What recognition did it get? Everybody talked about the moral high ground, but the Government imposed draconian legislation on us.
It should not be forgotten that five weeks ago some 160 petrol bombs and six shrapnel bombs were used against junior Orangemen — boys aged between six and 11 peacefully celebrating their culture. And within the last few weeks another 16 crates of milk bottles have been found. It will hardly surprise anyone to hear that they were not going to be refilled with milk. It seems that some residents of the Garvaghy Road are determined to cause trouble come what may.
As the county grand master of Armagh, who four weeks ago had no intention of being involved in politics, I want to say that people should make no mistake about the Portadown brethren. They are prepared to stand one day, 31 days, 365 days, or as long as it takes for their basic civil and religious liberty to be upheld. There were 10 parades on that road, nine of which have been given up voluntarily. We have only one parade now, and the brethren are not prepared to be suppressed any further. What is happening is wrong. Orangemen feel that the only cry coming from the road is that there will be no Orange feet on it.
Contrary to what some people have been telling Members, work went on behind the scenes last year and this year. Indeed, it continues. I am one of those who travelled to the carpet mills in 1996. One of the things on offer then was recognition of rights of both communities, including the right to hold StPatrick’s Day parades. But the Nationalist people of the road did not want to know.
I repeat that accommodation, not segregation, is the way forward. In this era of tolerance and mutual respect I appeal to the residents of Garvaghy Road to show tolerance. Members who have influence in the Nationalist community should use it wisely.
Finally, I appeal to the Government to overturn this iniquitous decision.

Lord Alderdice: The House will meet again on Monday 14 September 1998. May I wish all Members and the community a peaceful and, insofar as is possible, restful summer.
Adjourned at 10.20 pm.
 Menu / 14 September 1998